No it doesn't. But the House has no Constitutional say in the judiciary unless it's an amendment.
This is the Democrats trying to get around the fillibuster. It'll fail but the Democrats are trying to set precedent. They have no fucking concern for our founding document
The number of Seats were changed through an act of Congress numerous times...it went from 5 to 7 to 9 to 7 to 9. Congress actually reduced the number at one point to prevent Andrew Johnson who was on his way out the door from naming any new appointments. The most recent time it was changed (increased to 9) was in 1869, under Ulysses Grant.
It requires an act of Congress, not necessarliy an amendment.
My point is that it does not require a Constitutional amendment to do this. It was changed like 5 times in 80 years since the founding of the country by an act of Congress.
Now...this bill is still DOA in the Senate since you need 10 Republicans for this to pass in the Senate.
Yes they do, they and the senate determine the entire make up of the federal court system. Ever wonder how we have various circuits with judges that sit on them? It is called “legislation.” Do you know which body of government enacts “legislation?”
The House is only involved in impeachment & salaries when it comes to federal judges.
I think you're referencing the Judiciary Act of 1891 but that was agreed upon by all justices at the time and that was not limiting the power of the Supreme Court because those judges serve under the justices.
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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
NO THEY DO NOT. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE DOING THIS. THEY WANT THE COURTS TO TREAT THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS AS LIVING DOCUMENTS TO BE INTERPRETED HOWEVER IT IS CONVENIENT AT THE TIME. MEANING THOSE DOCUMENTS MIGHT ASWELL BE ART IN A MUSEUM.
No it doesn't. But the House has no Constitutional say in the judiciary unless it's an amendment.
This is the Democrats trying to get around the fillibuster. It'll fail but the Democrats are trying to set precedent. They have no fucking concern for our founding document
The number of Seats were changed through an act of Congress numerous times...it went from 5 to 7 to 9 to 7 to 9. Congress actually reduced the number at one point to prevent Andrew Johnson who was on his way out the door from naming any new appointments. The most recent time it was changed (increased to 9) was in 1869, under Ulysses Grant.
It requires an act of Congress, not necessarliy an amendment.
Shhhhhhhhh, don't confuse people with facts.
My point is that it does not require a Constitutional amendment to do this. It was changed like 5 times in 80 years since the founding of the country by an act of Congress.
Now...this bill is still DOA in the Senate since you need 10 Republicans for this to pass in the Senate.
I'm in total agreement with you. You're a million percent correct.
Yes they do, they and the senate determine the entire make up of the federal court system. Ever wonder how we have various circuits with judges that sit on them? It is called “legislation.” Do you know which body of government enacts “legislation?”
The Senate is involved in that. Not the House.
The House is only involved in impeachment & salaries when it comes to federal judges.
I think you're referencing the Judiciary Act of 1891 but that was agreed upon by all justices at the time and that was not limiting the power of the Supreme Court because those judges serve under the justices.
Wrong - it says “Congress” Not “Senate”
Article III.
Section. 1.
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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
NO THEY DO NOT. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE DOING THIS. THEY WANT THE COURTS TO TREAT THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS AS LIVING DOCUMENTS TO BE INTERPRETED HOWEVER IT IS CONVENIENT AT THE TIME. MEANING THOSE DOCUMENTS MIGHT ASWELL BE ART IN A MUSEUM.
Agreed.