Posted on Apr 15, 2021
Democrats kick off push to pack Supreme Court with four new justices
1.28K
35
18
9
9
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
Did Nadler poop himself on national television again? What a f'ing disgrace.
(4)
(0)
It would not need a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution does not prescribe the number of justices, and that number has been changed in the past.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thank you. From my understanding the number was changed because of reason, specifically work load. It's scary to think a co-equal branch of government can physically change the number of members in another. Maybe the SCOUS can rule that a states representatives are to be a maximin of 5. It would be interesting to see how Congress and the president feels about that, would in not?
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC (Join to see) It was changed during the FDR administration to pack the court to get his New Deal policies through a hostile court during the depression. Soon after, it was decided this wasn't a good political war to start and the number of justices returned to nine.
It would have to be a statutory change, and this the POTUS couldn't do it without Congress. In other words, I don't think it could be done without first removing the fillibuster.
It would have to be a statutory change, and this the POTUS couldn't do it without Congress. In other words, I don't think it could be done without first removing the fillibuster.
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SPC Kevin Ford - It wasn't actually changed during FDR's tenure. He proposed it, and tried to push it through, but never happened. He ended up getting what he wanted by sure longevity... enough justices died or resigned that the court was fully "his" by the time he died, anyway.
(1)
(0)
Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. So again, like so many dramatic stories, this only sounds "unconstitutional" to people who've never read it.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Thank you for the authoritative information. I suspect the reason it sounds unconstitutional to the people is because congress is saying they are fixing the court because it isn’t liberal enough. The court members were legally selected by elected officials so it seems a bit queer that the Democrats now want to increase court members when just a few short years ago they didn’t.
It also begs the question that is a new congress majority forms, then they will just decrease the membership… typically I believe it goes last in – first out, to be fair.
It also begs the question that is a new congress majority forms, then they will just decrease the membership… typically I believe it goes last in – first out, to be fair.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next