They're Trying to Do It: Dems Pass Bill to Pack the Supreme Court. Here Are the Details.

townhall.com ^

[DIRTYSECRET]

They want to do it. It’s not a secret. Democrats, upset that we’ve flipped the Supreme Court, now want to destroy the third branch of government.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Fake news by our own Townhall. Matt Vespa saying it's been passed while it's only been introduced. We have the same problem as the left. Correct me if you can.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

His article says “introduced.”

The title does not reflect the content of the article, but authors of articles have no control over the titles the editors of any publication give their article.

[Carry_Okie]

Democrats and RINOs had controlled the SCOTUS since Roosevelt, but God forbid that it should return toward the Constitution as ratified even a little bit and it’s a Constitutional crisis.

[Mouton]

If the dems are pushing this, they know they will lose senate.

[CharlesOConnell]

This article argues that the SCOTUS has no power, nor the other 2 branches of govt, the Military Industrial Complex is the real, hidden govt.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/09/jacob-hornberger/the-reason-for-no-declarations-of-war-since-ww-ii/

The SCOTUS merely ratifies what has already been decided.

[pepsionice]

Problem goes back to the Constitution and lack of clear text on ‘numbers’.

I would say this...if we go to ‘11’....why settle on that number being the ‘end’?

You might as well double down and say it should be 50 judges (1 from each state, with the judge required to have residence in his home state), and you draw a random 7 or 9 judges from the hat each time a case comes up. I’d even go as far as having each state (not the President or the House) determine their state supreme court judge.

[DIRTYSECRET]

**His article says “introduced.”
The title does not reflect the content of the article, but authors of articles have no control over the titles the editors of any publication give their article.**

Then the person to blame is Kate Pavlich who shows up on Fox. We get. this stuff and they have the nerve to hit us up for money. That’s what the sheeple rats do.

[joshua c]

that is not the title of the article

[joshua c]

how about repealing the 17th?

restore that check on federal power

[ConjunctionJunction]

I don’t know if they changed the title of the article after you posted it, but here is what it says the title is now:

“Are You Shocked Dems Are Pushing to Do This to the Supreme Court?”

[rfp1234]

That’s a gift to the GOP. This will backfire on the introducing party as badly as Lindsey’s harebrained federal abortion bill in 2022.

[markman46]

The headline does not match the townhall headline

[Political Junkie Too]

Here is my take on the bullet items in the summary of this bill:

1. Expands the Supreme Court to 15 justices.
   • This is apparently within the purview of Congress.

   • It could be the left's "abortion repeal" issue for the right to drive turnout in the next election.

2. Establishes a new ⅔ supermajority threshold to overturn Acts of Congress on a constitutional basis at both the Supreme Court and Circuit Court level.
   • This strikes me as being unconstitutional at the Supreme Court level due to separation of powers. Congress cannot tell the Supreme Court how it must rule. It can limit the jurisdiction of the Court, but cannot make conditions for the way the Court must rule.

   • This would need a Constitutional amendment to enact at the Supreme Court level.

   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

3. Requires that relief granted by lower courts in cases seeking to invalidate an Act of Congress expire upon the issuing date of an opinion by the Supreme Court.
   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

4. Establishes a new process for Supreme Court nominations that are not reported out of committee within 180 calendar days to be automatically placed on the Senate calendar.
   • This does not need a bill to enact. Each chamber can establish its own rules of operation. Confirmations are an exclusive power of the Senate and does not need approval of the House of Representatives or the President to enact.

5. Expands the number of circuit courts to 15 and returns the practice of one Supreme Court justice per circuit.
   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

6. Expands the number of circuits by splitting the Ninth Circuit and establishing a new Southwestern Circuit.
   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

7. Expands the number of Circuit Court and District Court judgeships to improve access to justice.
   • Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

8. Requires all justices to consider recusal motions and make their written opinions publically (sic) available. Any justice may be recused from a case upon the affirmative vote of ⅔ of the justices.
   • "Requires" to "consider?" The "consideration" would be "no" in most cases.

   • This is another separation of powers issue. Congress cannot tell the Supreme Court how it must operate. If Congress believes that a Justice of the Supreme Court is abusing "good Behavior," then the House of Representatives can impeach that Justice and the Senate can convict and remove that Justice.

9. Requires the public disclosure of how each justice voted for any case within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
   • This is a separation of powers issue. Congress cannot make the rules for how the Supreme Court must operate.

10. Requires the IRS to initiate an audit of each justice's income tax return (and any amended return) as quickly as practicable after it is filed. Within 90 days of filing, the IRS is required to publicly release the returns and provide an update on the status of the audit. Every 180 days thereafter, the IRS is required to update the public on the status of the audit. It will also release the ultimate findings of the audit.
    • This strikes me as an unconstitutional bill of attainder. No other person who holds an "Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" is subject to such a condition.

11. Requires that those nominated to the Court include their most recent three years of tax returns in their publicly-available financial disclosure filings. In the case that a nominee does not disclose the tax returns within 15 days after nomination, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is instructed to obtain the tax returns from the Secretary of the Treasury and make them public. The Secretary of the Treasury is instructed to redact certain personal identity information.
    • This strikes me as an unconstitutional bill of attainder. No other person who holds an "Office of Trust or Profit under the United States" is subject to such a conditi on.

    • If the Senate wants this information they can request it as part of their "advice and consent" power. If the nominee refuses to comply, the Senate can take that into consideration along with everything else when they vote to confirm the nominee.

-PJ

[dp0622]

How many votes in house and senate are needed?

Why waste our energy towards scare tactics nonsense?

It is DEAD already.

BUT maybe it will backfire and some normal people will be angry dems are doing this.

Anything is possible :)

[blitz128]

I was in a discussion with a freeper about posting links and got the typical “you are posting links to monetized sites and that is against FR rules”’and I asked how can you say something that is more than a comment without backing it up with the source. He replied you can just post excerpt or headlines. I relied excerpts can be taken out of context, and headlines can be misleading.

I rest my case😎

[catnipman]

headline now says:

“They’re Trying to Do It: Dems Are Pushing Legislation to Pack the Supreme Court. Here Are the Details.”

[nikos1121]

So if this passes does that mean the next president for example if it’s Trump will be able to pick six more Supreme Court judges? That means we will have 12 out of 15 conservative judges

[DIRTYSECRET]

*that is not the title of the article*
*The headline does not match the townhall headline*
*“They’re Trying to Do It: Dems Are Pushing Legislation to Pack the Supreme Court. Here Are the Details.”*

My friends it’s now been corrected. Perhaps the people at Townhall are freepers.

[Bookshelf]

Ron Wyden, a deracinated Jew who has learned nothing from history, including his family history:
Ronald Wyden was born in Wichita, Kansas, the son of Edith (née Rosenow) and Peter H. Wyden (originally Weidenreich, 1923–1998), both of whom were Jewish and had fled Nazi Germany.

[Phlyer]

I really appreciate your post. It's based on an analysis of what the Constitution says, point by point, and as literal as possible (meaning you look for the answer in the literal words, rather than look for ways to make the words fit your agenda). However, I do have one (recurring) concern:

You said Congress has jurisdiction over all inferior courts in the United States.

Can you tell me where this comes from? The Constitution itself says that Congress shall "ordain and establish" inferior courts, but that does not mean it continues to have jurisdiction over them once they are established. At least, not to me.

It's not even explicit that they can 'de-ordain and dis-establish' a court once it has been established, though perhaps this is implied.

Other than impeaching rogue judges (just as they can impeach the Supreme Court justices), it's not clear that you (meaning, the nominal person, 'it's not clear that one . . ') can just resolve all the issues on lesser courts with the appeal to authority argument - where Congress is that authority.