This just made me think of the Monty Python scene with the Holy Hand Grenade. "The number of Supreme Court Justices shall be nine, and nine will be the number of justices on the Supreme Court."
This needs to happen but shouldn't this be put forth after the election? Or... maybe he's trying to get dems to show their colors by voting against this.
The Constitution doesn’t mention the number of judges for the Supreme Court. It was 6 at the beginning with some fluctuations and going up to 10 in 1863. Then Congress passed a law in 1869 saying the number was to be 9. FDR threatened to pack the court going up to 15 unless they let his New Deal go through and the Dems are wanting to pack the court again. To set the number of justices in stone we’d need an amendment to the Constitution.
Because it's openended right now, which means that anytime one party gains control of both chambers and the Presidency, if they have enough disregard for the unspoken understandings of our nation (which the democrats do)... it means that party can theoretically go in and say "we're going to add 2 or 4 or 6 more justices"... and the current Constitution doesn't have boo to say about it. It's time to set the number in stone because it surely was NEVER the intent that people who want to do something unConstitutional can just add more justices until they get their way.
So that one party who controls both the White House and Congress cannot arbitrarily add more justices to the court, which the Democrats are threatening to do if Biden wins.
I understand your frustration, and appreciate the honest answer. However, going forward it might be better to change it up a bit. It’s also frustrating to read the comments and see the same user posting the same exact questions multiple times.
He needs leverage, when Trump wins he should nominate two more justices as leverage to get this done. They'll certainly opt for the 9 person court then.
The fewer justices on the SCOTUS the more incentivized each party is to ensure the person they vote in to the position adheres to the Constitution over anything else. The more numbers the scotus has the more it becomes a partisan political tool. 9 is a pretty good number but 7 is also good.
by definition when there are more people there are more cases and you need more judges. the system should be able to accommodate 1200 looters / rioters and process them in a fair and timely manner quickly. not weeks or days. it shouldnt take a fucking year for kyles case to get started.
What would happen if our beloved President made an announcement that the idea of packing the court is so great that he’s going to do it right after the election with conservative constitutionalists?
How about an amendment stating you have to interpretate the constitutional in the context it was written and interject your own beliefs. (right to privacy = right to abortion, diversity is a constitutional right greater than the equal protection clause).
Quite honestly, I don't give a damn enough about the Supreme Court losing power. The institution is corrupt beyond belief.
This just made me think of the Monty Python scene with the Holy Hand Grenade. "The number of Supreme Court Justices shall be nine, and nine will be the number of justices on the Supreme Court."
You have my blessing lol
Hey, I like it. Gave me a good laugh
If the court is split, that means the previous ruling stands. There is no need for an amendment for something that is already solved.
No idea. But I think odd numbers make sense.
Then we shall have Mike Pence break the tie, and on his deathbed he shall select someone who is worthy to carry this responsibility henceforth.
No. We would’ve ended with Obama’s pick if that happened.
That’s stupid. That would make it so someone could force through anyone and the senate couldn’t say no.
This needs to happen but shouldn't this be put forth after the election? Or... maybe he's trying to get dems to show their colors by voting against this.
Ding ding ding.
There are a whole lot of things we need amendments for.
Lets make an amendment that allows you to have guns. Make sure the language says it shouldn't be infringed.
The Constitution doesn’t mention the number of judges for the Supreme Court. It was 6 at the beginning with some fluctuations and going up to 10 in 1863. Then Congress passed a law in 1869 saying the number was to be 9. FDR threatened to pack the court going up to 15 unless they let his New Deal go through and the Dems are wanting to pack the court again. To set the number of justices in stone we’d need an amendment to the Constitution.
No it hasn’t, but if the Dems take Congress and the White House they can repeal it.
I wish.
I wish Cruz would introduce these great moves in YEARS WHEN WE HAVE THE VOTES
Seriously, if you want to find his best proposed legislation it's always when the votes are a non-starter.
He might be doing this partially to get dems to show their hand and vote against it... which wouldn't be a bad idea politically.
This needs to happen.
Because it's openended right now, which means that anytime one party gains control of both chambers and the Presidency, if they have enough disregard for the unspoken understandings of our nation (which the democrats do)... it means that party can theoretically go in and say "we're going to add 2 or 4 or 6 more justices"... and the current Constitution doesn't have boo to say about it. It's time to set the number in stone because it surely was NEVER the intent that people who want to do something unConstitutional can just add more justices until they get their way.
So that one party who controls both the White House and Congress cannot arbitrarily add more justices to the court, which the Democrats are threatening to do if Biden wins.
Why do you keep asking the same question over and over?
I understand your frustration, and appreciate the honest answer. However, going forward it might be better to change it up a bit. It’s also frustrating to read the comments and see the same user posting the same exact questions multiple times.
He needs leverage, when Trump wins he should nominate two more justices as leverage to get this done. They'll certainly opt for the 9 person court then.
Democrats are signing on to this - with the restriction that new Justices must be black, Muslim, transexual and hold a PhD in Marxist gender studies.
The fewer justices on the SCOTUS the more incentivized each party is to ensure the person they vote in to the position adheres to the Constitution over anything else. The more numbers the scotus has the more it becomes a partisan political tool. 9 is a pretty good number but 7 is also good.
Good, nip this shit right in the bud otherwise you know they will try it again later down the road.
Counter proposal:
Then all 9 justices are ours and Trump picked 6 of them himself. Big brain move. 😎😎😎😎
Shouldn't it scale with legal citizen population so that they don't have to skip so many reviews because of limited bandwidth?
We need fewer laws, not more. Everyone follows the same law, there shouldn't be more cases when there are more people.
by definition when there are more people there are more cases and you need more judges. the system should be able to accommodate 1200 looters / rioters and process them in a fair and timely manner quickly. not weeks or days. it shouldnt take a fucking year for kyles case to get started.
Wasn’t the original number 5. Let’s go back to that, so when the liberals start dying off, we don’t replace them with more liberals
What would happen if our beloved President made an announcement that the idea of packing the court is so great that he’s going to do it right after the election with conservative constitutionalists?
make it so!
zero % chance this passes, but i guess it's an ok symbolic gesture.
i' rather a bill to revoke 230 status for twitter.
How about an amendment stating you have to interpretate the constitutional in the context it was written and interject your own beliefs. (right to privacy = right to abortion, diversity is a constitutional right greater than the equal protection clause).
Quite honestly, I don't give a damn enough about the Supreme Court losing power. The institution is corrupt beyond belief.