- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS question, what stops Trump (or dems when/if they retain power) from "stacking"??
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:49 am
Posted on 4/20/17 at 8:49 am
Many of you are probably familiar with the Roosevelt's "court packing" attempts & the Judicial Reform Bill of 1937
I understand that we have settled on 9 supreme court justices (we started with 6 & the number has jumped around a few times)
we are very fortunate that Trump was able to appoint Gorsuch & if he gets to replace Ginsburg we really win.
But could that be undone if the dems take the Senate & the WH?
I saw this topic in an article recently, & the conclusion was that this maneuver is actually possible
Does anyone have any insight on this? I am not trying to "create something new to worry about"; but could this be done?
I understand that we have settled on 9 supreme court justices (we started with 6 & the number has jumped around a few times)
we are very fortunate that Trump was able to appoint Gorsuch & if he gets to replace Ginsburg we really win.
But could that be undone if the dems take the Senate & the WH?
I saw this topic in an article recently, & the conclusion was that this maneuver is actually possible
Does anyone have any insight on this? I am not trying to "create something new to worry about"; but could this be done?
9
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:00 am to dcbl
I believe it would require both houses of Congress to expand the court. Regular legislative process.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:03 am to dcbl
The Second Amendment
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:05 am to dcbl
Political capital
If the public thinks the court is a sham then their opinions and standing do not mean shite
If the public thinks the court is a sham then their opinions and standing do not mean shite
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:08 am to dcbl
Nothing stops them. I would fully expect it to happen if Dems win the White House and congress post trump if the court rules on a big issue they don't like. Republicans don't have the pr machine dems do to pull it off
This post was edited on 4/20/17 at 9:10 am
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:09 am to RonLaFlamme
quote:
I believe it would require both houses of Congress to expand the court. Regular legislative process.
Incorrect, there is no law governing how many Justices we have. If the Senate were to confirm 20 nominees that would be legal.
But it's sort of like MAD, you seat 20 and when we get in power, we'll seat 40 lol
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:12 am to dcbl
I don't think you'll see the numbers change, but you are going to see an ideological stacking now that the filibuster is gone. Personally, I want a balanced court (I know most on here just want 9 Scalias). The lack of filibuster is also going to make the court become more radical to both the left and right, depending on who is appointing.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:15 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Incorrect, the Circuit Judges Act of 1869 set the SCOTUS at nine justices.
This post was edited on 4/20/17 at 9:19 am
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:17 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
ncorrect, there is no law governing how many Justices we have. If the Senate were to confirm 20 nominees that would be legal.
Unequivocally false.
The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. In order for there to be more than nine, the U.S. Congress would have to pass a separate bill to override this act and that bill would have to be signed into law by the President.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:18 am to Antonio Moss
if the USSC gets to 6-3 or 7-2 under Trump, as soon as the DEMs hold all 3 branches i guarantee you court packing is one of the first things they go for
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
I assume you mean the remaining two branches
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if the USSC gets to 6-3 or 7-2 under Trump, as soon as the DEMs hold all 3 branches i guarantee you court packing is one of the first things they go for
I have to agree with this
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:23 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. In order for there to be more than nine, the U.S. Congress would have to pass a separate bill to override this act and that bill would have to be signed into law by the President.
thanks, based on this it would be pretty easy to do
which makes it kind of surprising that Obama did not attempt this early on in his presidency (outside of the fact that he spent all of his early political capital strong-arming the ACA through)
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:24 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
But it's sort of like MAD, you seat 20 and when we get in power, we'll seat 40 lol
Well the Dems have proven time & time again that they don't care to play that game. The only reason the Republicans had the balls to use the nuclear option for Gorsuch was because the Dems proved they would use it regardless the consequences down the road. I have no doubt that if they get the House, the Senate and WH, they will appoint however many Justices they need to in order to regain the court.
ETA: I didn't realize that the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine.
This post was edited on 4/20/17 at 9:31 am
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:28 am to Bamatab
quote:
That is why I think the Republicans need to try and pass a law now (while they have both House & Senate) to limit the number of Justices on the SC, or at least make it so that they need a super majority from both the House & Senate. The Dems could try and filibuster it, but they would lose some capital with the public if they tried.
yes sir - this is where I was going with this thread
amazing to me that SCOTUS is not a bigger hot button issue for more people
we need to do something about this NOW while we have the ability
However, it MAY be easier after the '18 elections
the most realistic projections for 2018 are seeing Repubs picking up 2 - 3 seats in the Senate & losing 15 - 20 in the House
we'd still have control of the House & we'd have a little more juice in the Senate
Hopefully, this is on Trump's radar...
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:30 am to CorporateTiger
You understand that acts can, like this one be changed. It was just the last update to the original judicial act of 1789. The only way to stop congress from changing it is to make it an amendment to the constitution. However since congress was given the sole responsibility of creating the judiciary I'm not sure they can over ride that power.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:30 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
I assume you mean the remaining two branches
sorry yes. i meant Pres + both houses of Congress (where i got 3 in my head)
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:32 am to Rogers Hog
quote:
The only way to stop congress from changing it is to make it an amendment to the constitution. However since congress was given the sole responsibility of creating the judiciary I'm not sure they can over ride that power.
well if you amend the Constitution, it removes that power from Congress. Congress only has power based on what the Constitution says, and if you remove that power from Congress in the Constitution, Congress can't do shite about it
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:34 am to dcbl
Trump is going to stack the court naturally.
I'm ready for another appointment already.
I'm ready for another appointment already.
Posted on 4/20/17 at 9:35 am to dcbl
I would be in favor of going to 10 justices, or dropping back to 8.
Too many have been conditioned to believe a 5-4 decision should shape the future of the entire country.
Too many have been conditioned to believe a 5-4 decision should shape the future of the entire country.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News