Nadler Urges Democrats to ‘Expand’ Supreme Court if GOP Fills Ginsburg Seat Before Inauguration

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ideally the court would remain at 9. But I agree they should be term limited. Much longer than the term of a senator or president, mind you, but limited nonetheless. I think 40 years is probably too long. 25 would be reasonable to me.
 
Anesti33 said:
40.png
PaulinVA:
Court packing by either side is wrong. The Democrats need to get a grip. As do the Republicans.
Click to expand...
What do you mean, it’s “wrong”? Unfair? Illegal? Immoral?
Click to expand...
It is self-serving.
 
Anesti33 said:
Partisan politics is self-serving.
Click to expand...
The desire to pack the court is a consequence of partisan politics. And the court should never have gotten politicized in the first place. Their job is to interpret the law in an unbiased way, not legislate from the bench.
 
rjo8 said:
  • Expand the court to 10
  • Chief Justice’s vote is worth 2 giving 11 total votes so no ties will occur
  • Term limits of 40 years meaning each president can appoint a maximum of two permanent justices
Click to expand...
The first is no problem. Just have the law changed. Easy enough.

On the second, I’m not sure. The Judiciary Act requires a quorum of 4 justices, but didn’t say how votes were done. The rest, I think, is up to the court. itself. Initially, the justices each wrote their own opinion, and decisions required a 2/3 majority (since the court size was 6). But Marshall changed things to only a single court opinion. And now things are different. I think if the justices wanted to do so, they could setup things however they wish.

As for term limits, it would require a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. But the number I hear often mentioned by Richard Epstein is 18 years. That sounds like a good number to me.
 
Court-packing is yet another Democrat scheme as they cannot win with their ideas.
 
Suudy said:
As for term limits, it would require a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. But the number I hear often mentioned by Richard Epstein is 18 years.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that is right…there are some who think that you can do this without a constitutional amendment. I even read some analysis on this.
The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour…” – U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section I
Click to expand...

Being that the Supreme Court gets to decide wether or not term limits are constitutional and it doesn’t look like they are from the constitution, good luck with doing this without an amendment. Good luck getting an amendment.
 
Ruth’s ego sure is putting the country through a lot of turmoil.

She caused all this by wanting Hillary to appoint her replacement. Liberals made their bed, now they have to lie on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top