Posted on 07/05/2012 10:03:08 AM PDT by privatedrive
The Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court; that decision is left to Congress. I submit that now is the time to increase that number to at least 15. Clearly the current makeup of the SC concentrates too much power to one individual (formerly Kennedy, now Roberts).
In 1861, Congress passed a law fixing the number of SC Justices at 9. The original U.S. Supreme Court had only six Justices; that number has changed several times over the years.
1.Judiciary Act of 1789: Court size 6 2.Judiciary Act of 1801: Court size, 5 3.Repeal Act of 1802: Court size, 6 4.Seventh Circuit Act of 1807: Court size, 7 5.Judiciary Act of 1837: Court size, 9 6.Tenth Circuit Act of 1863: Court size, 10 7.Judicial Circuit Act of 1866: Court size, 7 8.Habeas Corpus Act of 1867: Court size, 8 9.Judiciary Act of 1869: Court size, 9
I believe that now is a good time to increase the number, and thereby reduce the chances of one justice deciding the interpretation of law based on outside influences.
I say we just trim it down to the 4 that understand the job they where tapped to do.
how does increasing the number of justices increase the court’s power? I would argue that it lessons each justice’s power.
Well, right now the justices can amend the Constitution every session and the justices always have the last word.
Perhaps, the state legislatures could overturn supreme court decisions by 2/3 or 3/4 vote w/o Congress.
Indeed the States may be our last best hope.
The number is irrelevant as there will always be an ample supply of people more than willing to put political views ahead of the US Constitution and the US Citizens.
What we need a 9 judges who have shown to have a full and complete understanding of the Constitution as INTENDED not what they would like it to say.
These judges need to use the owner’s manual, known as the Federalist Papers to erase any last vestiges of political bias and to insure they know how, what and why the Constitution was written and the intent of the founders to finally give the world a country with a LIMITED government. LIMITED government is one of the most important concepts and one that the black robed political hack lawyer morons seem unable, or more than likely, unwilling to grasp.
Well said and agreed. unforunately we are in a situation
now where 1st and 2nd amendment rights are about to fall. We need to do something different. And most assuredly, we musy contain SC’s newfound power.
Yea, let’s let Obama pick six more SC judges. That should really help the country.
Well read.
Also, I'm very pleased that you brought up this topic. A lot of folks are critically thinking about things and trying to come up with solutions.
Hypothetical:
Let's say you want to go from 9 to 15 Justices. Who picks the appointees? The President does. On 2/1/2013, Congress has authorized the SCOTUS to go from 9 to 15 Justices. If Obama is President at the time, he gets to send 6 nominees to be approved by Congress. You know as well as I do that Democrat nominees go through without any issues. If Romney is President, do you believe he will nominate 6 strict constitutionalists? Do you even think it will be 2-3?
So now instead of getting 5-4 and 6-3 decisions it becomes 11-4 and 12-3.
Yes, the individual Justice's power and influence is diminished. BUT how many years and Presidents’ SCOTUS nominees would it take to balance out the SCOTUS? If it could be even be done at that point.
This is all IMHO. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, etc. but just an average guy who loves our Country!
Yes and thank you for advancing the discussion. I know it’s a huge risk and if obama wins again it will backfire. But if romney wins and sc remains in its current form, we’re still screwed.
That’s 99% of the problem with Justices and the SCOTUS. I believe every single one of them knows EXACTLY what the Constitution says and what every amendment EXACTLY means based on the Founders intent and understanding. They don’t personally agree with the Constitution and instead of judging whether or not a case is Constitutional or not they are more interested in advancing their ideology. So they hide behind the “Living Constitution” idea/statement as cover to do whatever they want.
totally agree. But how do we fix it? and we’re almost out of time.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
A 2/3rds vote would ensure they’d never be removed.
good quote but what is your point?
Show what power Congress has over the SCOTUS - ie created it, can impeach/remove justices for bad behavior (high crimes/misdemeanors), can regulate how many justices, controls funding/budget for SCOTUS, etc.
It’s embarrassing when so-called conservatives call for plays right out of the FDR playbook. Your idea was attempted once, for the same reason (to obtain outcomes unobtainable with the currently seated court) in 1937 by Roosevelt.
The founders put in place a method to overturn supreme court decisions. I'd like to hear Levin's explanation why he thinks he could improve on that plan.
Where we part thinking is that you seem to believe that we'd be less screwed if Romney could appoint more justices. That's a pipe dream.
Elect enough real, fire-breathing, Tea Party conservatives to Congress and we could throw out ALL of the liberal Supreme Court deadwood.
Just take any ridiculous decision (Kelo v. New London, as an example) and cite that as an example of judicial misconduct and a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution says justices shall serve during times of “good behavior” so we don’t require a felony conviction to throw the bums out.
All we need is a Congress that truly represents us.
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.