[Young Rhino]

In a conservative move, why not reduce the size of the court to five, and dump the lefties in the process? If increasing the size of the court would be considered packing, would decreasing be unpacking?

[KantianBurke]

this is a joke post right?

[Arkinsaw]

You better pack it with 20 year olds because they would have to last a long, long, time till Republicans got control of anything again.

[End The Hypocrisy]

In the USA, less than 1% of cases are granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In some countries, though, the national Supreme Court addresses all incoming cases. A neighborly example that comes to mind is that of our #2 trading partner of Mexico, which has dozens of Supreme Court Justices if I remember correcty. The SCOTUS is seemingly in need of reform.

[HitmanLV]

Nah, no worries. Let 2 retire over the next 2 years and we get 2 appointments. Hang on to everything (Prez, House & Senate) in 2004 and replace retiring leftists then, before 2006 and 2008.

I'm figuring Rudy will be Prez in 2008, no telling what justices he will name, though I am sure they will be ok.

[Amelia]

How about labeling your fantasies as "Vanity"?

Warning: TOO MUCH beer is not conducive to rational thinking.

[Congressman Billybob]

It is an interesting point that while the Constitution specifies a "Supreme Court," it does not state the number of Justices. The authorized size of the Supreme Court has varied from 7 to 11. (No carry-out jokes, please.) So, FDR was within the Constitution when he proposed his "court-packing" plan to appoint one new Justice for every Justice on the Court who was older than 70.

However, FDR withdrew his plan, despite having overwhelming public support personally and a strong majority in the Senate. The traditions of America are sometimes as strong as her laws. It was only a tradition that the Court be fixed at nine Justices. But that tradition held.

(It was also only a tradition, established by George Washington, that Presidents would serve no more than two terms, and then step down. After FDR violated that tradition, the people then wrote it into the Constitution, so it will never be violated again.)

Even though I am one of the stanchest supporters of getting more Justices on the Court who actually understand and obey the Constitution, I am an example of why a Court-packing plan will fail. Court-packing is a double-edged sword which could be used by any new President to flip the Court, and flip the Constitution, in a moment.

If such a plan were proposed, I would hold my nose and join with the predictable lefties to oppose it, tooth and nail. Stability is important in every institution, but most importantly in the Supreme Court.

Put Court-packing down as a theoretical idea that is possible, but will never happen, except over my dead body. Is that stating it strongly enough?

Congressman Billybob

"This Just In: Bush Defeats Clinton"

"to Restore Trust in America"

[elenchus]

Control of the Senate--and the conservative agenda which depends on that control (including judicial appointments)--is actually much shakier than commonly realized: Are we drowning in self-congratulation?

We can't afford to gloat or be complacent when at any moment we might lose the Republican Senate majority. See the winning strategy available:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786126/posts

[Reagan Man]

>>>This being the first time since FDR that the GOP has controlled the White House and both houses of Congress...

Make that, the first time since Eisenhower was President, in 1952-1954.

[McGavin999]

Look, the simple fact is Bush is going to appoint 4 USSC Justices, probably within the next 2 years. Rhenquist and O'Conner have been wanting to retire, Stevens is doddering and Ginsberg is battling cancer. Even if Rhenquist and O'Conner are replaced with good, constitutional scholars that will swing the court heavily in the direction of a court as designed by our forefathers and not a member of the legislative branch. In addition, when Rhenquist retires, Bush gets to appoint the Chief Justice. That will either be Thomas or Scalia, both fairly young men.

I look for Bush to appoint his Chief Whitehouse council (a hispanic) to the USSC either with the first or second opening. We don't need to have a fight over increasing the size of the USSC right now, we have bigger battles to win.

[Cicero]

You are correct that the Constitution doesn't specify the number of justices. But it would be a terrible precedent. The last president to try to pack the court, as the media referred to it at the time, was FDR. He tried to do it so he could pass his socialist programs, some of which the Supreme Court had struck down. Despite his great popularity, he failed.

If Bush tried it, he would instantly plummet about 30 points in the polls and nothing else would be heard about in the media for the next two years, when he would be thrown out of office.

Not only that, but if by some miracle he succeeded, he would set the precedent for the next clinton to get into the White House. No, not even bill clinton dared to try to pack the court. But wouldn't he have loved it if the Republicans had given him a precedent?

[BushMeister]

FDR tried to increase the number of SC Justices to 15, in order to stack it with liberals. Even during his amazing 4-term presidency, he couldn't get it done.

There's no way Bush is going to change the number of Supremes, nor should Bush try.

[SamAdams76]

So long as we keep electing Republican presidents, we'll be able to get the Supreme Court in balance again. Those lefties aren't going to live forever.

[Flint]

I understand what you are saying in your several responses. Only thing I can add is that if it was a possiblity then the Clintons would have done it years ago. Don't think that they didn't consider it!