re: SCOTUS question, what stops Trump (or dems when/if they retain power) from "stacking"??

quote:

---

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...

---

But I didn't realize that The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine when I made my original post. I'm not sure what else can be done. Like someone already stated, you'd need to make an amendment to the constitution, and that would take a 2/3 majority in both the Senate & House, or be ratified by 3/4 of the states after a Nation Convention is called.

Judiciary Act should be repealed.

Court should have an even number of justices.

If Dems take the senate at midterms he won't get another through. Period.

Going nuclear will have consequences

I love how certain everyone gets that their side will or won't have power forever in the future. In 2015 people on this board were doom and gloom because conservatives power was waning, now everyone is certain that they will never be out of power again.

Or you would just see people to continue to ignore issues since our government isn't always the best at resolving problems.

Asahi Metal which was decided by a plurality left us with unclear law on products liability for decades. Congress didn't do shite to solve the issue in the interim. To the best of my knowledge the law on that is STILL unclear ~30 years later.

Judicial gridlock isn't necessarily a good thing.

quote:

---

It was never the intent for a single justice to decide the course of a nation.

---

Link?

And it's not a single justice, it's five justices.

quote:

---

An even number on the court ensures that a 'super majority' is needed to issues rulings (5-3, 4-2, etc).

---

In the event of a split vote, the lower court ruling stands. Don't you see that as a problem? One of the main types of cases taken by the Supreme Court is a split in the circuits. If you have a split in the circuits and an evenly divided Court, then certain portions of the country will be subjected to different laws in perpetuity.

quote:

---

Any case so heated it results in a 4-4 tie would cause the people / legislatures / Congress to address via the legislative process as needed, which would allow the citizens more of a voice.

---

That's not what happens.

quote:

---

I love how certain everyone gets that their side will or won't have power forever in the future. In 2015 people on this board were doom and gloom because conservatives power was waning, now everyone is certain that they will never be out of power again.

---

Don't over think it big dawg... It was just a good time to use that gif

quote:

---

Personally, I want a balanced court (I know most on here just want 9 Scalias).

---

The democrats actively push for activist judges. They want to legistlate from the bench. Hillary Clinton basically called for it in the third debate.

This is not what we should want from judges as that is the role of Congress. They want to undermine the system and the idea of a "balanced court" is a farce.

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

---

The only ACTUAL bar that remains at this point is the legislative filibuster. The filibuster has been killed for executive actions (i.e., approval of nominations), but remains fully intact for legislation. This is important, because the Senate has to switch from "legislative session" to "executive session" depending on what they are voting on.

People didn't realize this during all the hullabaloo about Gorsuch, but the executive filibuster was a relatively recent phenomenon in the grand scheme of things. For almost 200 years executive branch nominations were approved on a straight up or down vote, with no invocation of cloture (which is where the filibuster comes in). It was never an issue because they were routinely approved without having to decide if the legislative filibuster should apply.

It wasn't until the mid-to-late 70s that someone decided, hey, why aren't we doing the same thing when we are in executive session deciding nominees. This may have been the Fortas vote, but I can't recall.

Anyway, now that the executive session filibuster is gone, they would have to have a supermajority to overcome the legislative filibuster in a court-packing plan.

If the Senate abolished the legislative filibuster to court-pack with a bare majority, THAT would be literally unprecedented since the Senate was formed.

quote:

---

I just love a reason to use "Time is a flat circle."

---

Touche