Posted on 09/20/2020 7:50:22 AM PDT by wrrock
Since the left seems ok with it now, we should just add 5 more judges after Trump wins and make it a 11 to 3 conservative court and forcing them to have to add 9 more whenever they get the chance!
Liberals screwed themselves with the filibuster change, and now they are about to screw themselves with this :) And remember a supreme court can MAKE law, so we only need to pack it and then have the new 11 to 3 majority declare that it can’t be increased more. HECK why not! its a LIVING constitution according to the libs!
Hang the libs by their own pitard!
I’ve read an argument that packing is unconstitutional. There really is nothing from stopping a newly remade court from declaring packing to be unconstitutional.
What does the left do then?
I’d rather pass a bill requiring that the Supreme Court stays 9 forever if we get all 3 branches again. If not, by 2050, we may have 100 Supreme Court judges.
They wouldn’t dare UNLESS they win control of Congress and the presidential election. Otherwise it is a fool’s errand.
I’m not sure how that’s possible since it was done once in the 1800’s. The court went from 6 to 9 justices.
What the Court should do is to establish its own rules for participation in decisions. And, while they are at it, eliminate nationwide application of district court orders.
That's what I figured as well. The concept of judicial review. The current court would essentially have to agree to allow itself to be packed.
Packing the court would have to withstand judicial challenge at SCOTUS itself.
It is unconstitutional and where would it end? Each new party would simply come in and appoint enough judges to have the majority and by the time my kids die SCOTUS would look like the Senate and eventually congress.
That is not what our constitution prescribed. If they did it at SCOTUS they could do it at the circuit courts also. It would be a mess.
a bill wouldn’t do it, has to be a constitutional amendment to change that.
The intent in the 1800s wasn’t to create a court to be political. We are in a different time. It’s the intent behind the packing, to usurp the indecent role of the court, that makes it unconstitutional.
If all events over the next 5 years fall to Democrat favor, allowing them to “pack the court” and add one or more states...let there be no doubt they will have forced a shooting civil war.
And the Republic will come to an end.
“It is unconstitutional and where would it end? “
There is no plausible argument that packing the court is unconstitutional.
If Congress and the president agree to 47 justices, it will be so.
It betrays constitutional ignorance to say otherwise.
The Constitution is silent on the size of the Supreme Court. The size has varied over the years. The Congress decides the numbers of Justices. Roosevelt was only stopped from expanding the Supreme Court by the Democrat Congress who did not want to do it.
However, the Supreme Court was rattled and became very reluctant to block any of Roosevelt's initiatives, some of which were clearly Unconstitutional.
Ludicrous.
Intent does not factor into whether such an act is constitutional.
Packing the court is clearly and unambiguously constitutional.
How about 535 Supreme Court Justices. One for each Congressional District and 2 per state at large Justices. They could work at home and vote on decisions via Zoom. It's only fair.
The Dems would need all both houses and White House and to completely end filibuster in the Senate to redefine the court so they can pack the court as FDR envisioned.
Packing the court to set up a ruling council of hard left communists was never intended by the founders. The republic would be finished in such a scenario.
Here is the plain reality of it as well, if the remade SCOTUS ruled packing unconstitutional, what would you and your leftist buddies do about it?
We keep referring to how things were done since the beginning. We didn’t have a party of communists in the beginning.
I’m not going to live under a communist regime. I don’t care if we need to start up the rotors to stop it.
I’ll tell you what’s leftist, and relevant for a forum discussion point:
- Advocating the constitutional argument that the elected branches do not have total control over the federal courts in questions of composition and scope of authority.
That’s leftist. And absolutely contrary to the constitution as plainly understood.
That’s your first lesson in strict constructionism. I encourage you to share it with your sewing circle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.