Constitutional Amendment to fix the Supreme Court

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.
How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?
Simply add an amendment that adds the maximum number of supreme's allowed pretty simply concept.
The Constitution didn't create the Supreme Court...An amendment to nothing would have no power.
What Constitution are YOU reading?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
Which doesn't solve the problem that another Congress can just come along and change that, which was the whole point.
True....But, as was already pointed out, the USSC came along and changed the legislation that made them possible.

Nobody will exempt themselves from overreach...Writing new rules will just give them something else to ignore.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
There should be a jurist from each state nominated by the governor and appointed by the state legislature.
And a huge, unwieldy, political-by-design mess like that would accomplish what?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.
How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?
Okay, first of all, the Constitution DID create the Supreme Court. It was an act of Congressional legislation which specified the current number of Justices. I have no idea where you got the notion that the Supreme Court was created by Congress.

Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 1, when listing the powers of the Presidency, also specifically mentions nominating and appointing, with advice and consent of the Senate, Justices of the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court was very clearly integral to the Constitution from the get-go.
Why did you ignore the next phrase in that first sentence?

...and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
 

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,156
Reaction score
2,344
Points
275
Location
USA
I see no indication from any leftardz to indicated that any of them have any respect or regard for the Constitution as it is. I doubt they give a rats ass about any further amendments.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
Which doesn't solve the problem that another Congress can just come along and change that, which was the whole point.
True....But, as was already pointed out, the USSC came along and changed the legislation that made them possible.

Nobody will exempt themselves from overreach...Writing new rules will just give them something else to ignore.
Sorry, WHAT the fuck are you talking about, "came along and changed the legislation that made them possible"?

And how is it that you keep saying, "We just need Congress to pass a new law, and then Congress can just change that law, so what we need is for Congress to pass a law." This is entirely incoherent.

The point of proposing an amendment to the Constitution which limits the number of Justices to 9 is that Constitutional amendments cannot just be changed and ignored the way Congressional legislation can.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
Which doesn't solve the problem that another Congress can just come along and change that, which was the whole point.
True....But, as was already pointed out, the USSC came along and changed the legislation that made them possible.

Nobody will exempt themselves from overreach...Writing new rules will just give them something else to ignore.
Sorry, WHAT the fuck are you talking about, "came along and changed the legislation that made them possible"?

And how is it that you keep saying, "We just need Congress to pass a new law, and then Congress can just change that law, so what we need is for Congress to pass a law." This is entirely incoherent.

The point of proposing an amendment to the Constitution which limits the number of Justices to 9 is that Constitutional amendments cannot just be changed and ignored the way Congressional legislation can.
That's how the system is designed.

The congress is charged with ordaining and regulating the courts...The English in Article 3 is plain.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.
How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?
Okay, first of all, the Constitution DID create the Supreme Court. It was an act of Congressional legislation which specified the current number of Justices. I have no idea where you got the notion that the Supreme Court was created by Congress.

Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 1, when listing the powers of the Presidency, also specifically mentions nominating and appointing, with advice and consent of the Senate, Justices of the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court was very clearly integral to the Constitution from the get-go.
Why did you ignore the next phrase in that first sentence?

...and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Because it doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, and is thus irrelevant. Saying, "Congress created the Supreme Court, because the Constitution says it can create lesser courts" is nonsensical.

Why did YOU ignore the first phrase in that sentence?
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.
How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?
Okay, first of all, the Constitution DID create the Supreme Court. It was an act of Congressional legislation which specified the current number of Justices. I have no idea where you got the notion that the Supreme Court was created by Congress.

Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 1, when listing the powers of the Presidency, also specifically mentions nominating and appointing, with advice and consent of the Senate, Justices of the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court was very clearly integral to the Constitution from the get-go.
Why did you ignore the next phrase in that first sentence?

...and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Because it doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, and is thus irrelevant. Saying, "Congress created the Supreme Court, because the Constitution says it can create lesser courts" is nonsensical.

Why did YOU ignore the first phrase in that sentence?
Because it's the second sentence that shows who holds the power to ordain and regulate the courts: Congress.

They could go ahead and abolish the current USSC and start from scratch, according to a strict constructionist reading of Article 3.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
Which doesn't solve the problem that another Congress can just come along and change that, which was the whole point.
True....But, as was already pointed out, the USSC came along and changed the legislation that made them possible.

Nobody will exempt themselves from overreach...Writing new rules will just give them something else to ignore.
Sorry, WHAT the fuck are you talking about, "came along and changed the legislation that made them possible"?

And how is it that you keep saying, "We just need Congress to pass a new law, and then Congress can just change that law, so what we need is for Congress to pass a law." This is entirely incoherent.

The point of proposing an amendment to the Constitution which limits the number of Justices to 9 is that Constitutional amendments cannot just be changed and ignored the way Congressional legislation can.
That's how the system is designed.

The congress is charged with ordaining and regulating the courts...The English in Article 3 is plain.
Yes, the English IS plain . . . which doesn't seem to stop you from wildly misunderstanding it for some unknown agenda of your own.

It plainly says, "There will be a Supreme Court, and the whatever lesser courts Congress designates." You, for whatever reason, are determined to read that as "Congress decides on the existence of ALL courts". Maybe instead of trying to deal with issues of the Constitution and federal law, you should first deal with more fundamental matters of buying a dictionary and looking up the word "lesser".
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
Which doesn't solve the problem that another Congress can just come along and change that, which was the whole point.
True....But, as was already pointed out, the USSC came along and changed the legislation that made them possible.

Nobody will exempt themselves from overreach...Writing new rules will just give them something else to ignore.
Sorry, WHAT the fuck are you talking about, "came along and changed the legislation that made them possible"?

And how is it that you keep saying, "We just need Congress to pass a new law, and then Congress can just change that law, so what we need is for Congress to pass a law." This is entirely incoherent.

The point of proposing an amendment to the Constitution which limits the number of Justices to 9 is that Constitutional amendments cannot just be changed and ignored the way Congressional legislation can.
That's how the system is designed.

The congress is charged with ordaining and regulating the courts...The English in Article 3 is plain.
Yes, the English IS plain . . . which doesn't seem to stop you from wildly misunderstanding it for some unknown agenda of your own.

It plainly says, "There will be a Supreme Court, and the whatever lesser courts Congress designates." You, for whatever reason, are determined to read that as "Congress decides on the existence of ALL courts". Maybe instead of trying to deal with issues of the Constitution and federal law, you should first deal with more fundamental matters of buying a dictionary and looking up the word "lesser".
There's no agenda....It's clear that the responsibility of ordaining and regulating the courts lies with congress, via legislation.....There's no need, and questionable jurisdiction, for any constitutional amendment to micromanage that responsibility.

If you want to further flesh out Article 3 and set forth a specific framework for all the courts into the Constitution, that's a different animal altogether....Good luck with that.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.
How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?
Okay, first of all, the Constitution DID create the Supreme Court. It was an act of Congressional legislation which specified the current number of Justices. I have no idea where you got the notion that the Supreme Court was created by Congress.

Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 1, when listing the powers of the Presidency, also specifically mentions nominating and appointing, with advice and consent of the Senate, Justices of the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court was very clearly integral to the Constitution from the get-go.
Why did you ignore the next phrase in that first sentence?

...and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Because it doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, and is thus irrelevant. Saying, "Congress created the Supreme Court, because the Constitution says it can create lesser courts" is nonsensical.

Why did YOU ignore the first phrase in that sentence?
Because it's the second sentence that shows who holds the power to ordain and regulate the courts: Congress.

They could go ahead and abolish the current USSC and start from scratch, according to a strict constructionist reading of Article 3.
No, it's the second sentence which shows who holds the power to ordain and regulate INFERIOR courts. That's why it specifically says the word "INFERIOR".

They could NOT "go ahead and abolish the USSC" for the precise reason that the Constitution states that there will be a Supreme Court, period. Your reading is anything BUT a "strict constructionist reading"; it's an illiterate "I really like the way this sounds, so fuck the actual words" reading.
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.
How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?
Okay, first of all, the Constitution DID create the Supreme Court. It was an act of Congressional legislation which specified the current number of Justices. I have no idea where you got the notion that the Supreme Court was created by Congress.

Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 1, when listing the powers of the Presidency, also specifically mentions nominating and appointing, with advice and consent of the Senate, Justices of the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court was very clearly integral to the Constitution from the get-go.
Why did you ignore the next phrase in that first sentence?

...and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Because it doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, and is thus irrelevant. Saying, "Congress created the Supreme Court, because the Constitution says it can create lesser courts" is nonsensical.

Why did YOU ignore the first phrase in that sentence?
Because it's the second sentence that shows who holds the power to ordain and regulate the courts: Congress.

They could go ahead and abolish the current USSC and start from scratch, according to a strict constructionist reading of Article 3.
No, it's the second sentence which shows who holds the power to ordain and regulate LESSER courts. That's why it specifically says the word "LESSER".

They could NOT "go ahead and abolish the USSC" for the precise reason that the Constitution states that there will be a Supreme Court, period. Your reading is anything BUT a "strict constructionist reading"; it's an illiterate "I really like the way this sounds, so fuck the actual words" reading.
"....AND in such inferior courts...."

The English is plain as day.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
Which doesn't solve the problem that another Congress can just come along and change that, which was the whole point.
True....But, as was already pointed out, the USSC came along and changed the legislation that made them possible.

Nobody will exempt themselves from overreach...Writing new rules will just give them something else to ignore.
Sorry, WHAT the fuck are you talking about, "came along and changed the legislation that made them possible"?

And how is it that you keep saying, "We just need Congress to pass a new law, and then Congress can just change that law, so what we need is for Congress to pass a law." This is entirely incoherent.

The point of proposing an amendment to the Constitution which limits the number of Justices to 9 is that Constitutional amendments cannot just be changed and ignored the way Congressional legislation can.
That's how the system is designed.

The congress is charged with ordaining and regulating the courts...The English in Article 3 is plain.
Yes, the English IS plain . . . which doesn't seem to stop you from wildly misunderstanding it for some unknown agenda of your own.

It plainly says, "There will be a Supreme Court, and the whatever lesser courts Congress designates." You, for whatever reason, are determined to read that as "Congress decides on the existence of ALL courts". Maybe instead of trying to deal with issues of the Constitution and federal law, you should first deal with more fundamental matters of buying a dictionary and looking up the word "lesser".
There's no agenda....It's clear that the responsibility of ordaining and regulating the courts lies with congress, via legislation.....There's no need, and questionable jurisdiction, for any constitutional amendment to micromanage that responsibility.

If you want to further flesh out Article 3 and set forth a specific framework for all the courts into the Constitution, that's a different animal altogether....Good luck with that.
Okay, fine, you have no agenda; you're just illiterate and badly in need of remedial reading courses.

It's clear that you think what you want it to say is what it says, regardless of the actual words and their meanings, and you've misinterpreted your functional illiteracy as clever originality.

And no, we do not need to "flesh out a framework for all courts" to limit the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, because your personal inability to define and understand the phrase "inferior courts" does not create in anyone else the obligation to treat your reading deficiencies as reality.
 
Last edited:

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.
How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?
Okay, first of all, the Constitution DID create the Supreme Court. It was an act of Congressional legislation which specified the current number of Justices. I have no idea where you got the notion that the Supreme Court was created by Congress.

Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 1, when listing the powers of the Presidency, also specifically mentions nominating and appointing, with advice and consent of the Senate, Justices of the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court was very clearly integral to the Constitution from the get-go.
Why did you ignore the next phrase in that first sentence?

...and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Because it doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, and is thus irrelevant. Saying, "Congress created the Supreme Court, because the Constitution says it can create lesser courts" is nonsensical.

Why did YOU ignore the first phrase in that sentence?
Because it's the second sentence that shows who holds the power to ordain and regulate the courts: Congress.

They could go ahead and abolish the current USSC and start from scratch, according to a strict constructionist reading of Article 3.
No, it's the second sentence which shows who holds the power to ordain and regulate LESSER courts. That's why it specifically says the word "LESSER".

They could NOT "go ahead and abolish the USSC" for the precise reason that the Constitution states that there will be a Supreme Court, period. Your reading is anything BUT a "strict constructionist reading"; it's an illiterate "I really like the way this sounds, so fuck the actual words" reading.
"....AND in such inferior courts...."

The English is plain as day.
Again, your inability to perform basic reading comprehension does not redefine reality. While you're having someone who CAN read look up the word "inferior" in the dictionary and explain it to you, have them look up the word "context" for you.

Here is what the "plain as day" English ACTUALLY says when you read the whole sentence, rather than cherry-picking short phrases and trying to ignore what they refer to.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts . . .

Very clearly - "plain as day", one might even say - the phrase you've hung your stupidity on is discussing who has judicial power, not who is created and controlled by Congress. Congress is not the subject of this sentence.

You should go back to every English teacher you have ever had and slap them for allowing you to make such an incredible fool of yourself in public, and then you should go join the Democrat Party, as they are the only group suitable for your level of arrogant ignorance.

You are done being allowed to talk to me, until such time as you have proven educated enough to deserve the privilege of my time and attention. Begone back to 2nd grade, buffoon!
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
...It stopped working in 2016.
No, it still works; it just doesn't work at-present the way that the Dems want it to.

Perhaps Senator Harry Reid (D)(Nevada) should not have used the nuclear-option on the 60-vote majority for confirmation, after all?

In any event, the present configuration is just a blip on the scope of history - no need to change it merely for short-term partisan advantage.

I vote to keep it at nine.

And I'd support a Constitutional Amendment to lock that in.

( not that such an Amendment stands a snowball's-chance-in-Hades of ever coming to a vote, or sent to the States for ratification )
Perhaps McConnel shouldn’t have blocked Obama’s judicial appointments, at an unprecedented level...

Perhaps McConnel shouldn’t have employed the nuclear option on SCOTUS.

Perhaps McConnel shouldn’t have denied a sitting president ris right to fill a SCOTUS vacancy...

There are a lot of perhaps’s that have led to this complete break down in norms and rules and brought us to this point.
No, there's only one.

Perhaps the left should accept that they don't get to remake the system so that they win everything forever.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,777
Reaction score
10,012
Points
2,030
I see no indication from any leftardz to indicated that any of them have any respect or regard for the Constitution as it is. I doubt they give a rats ass about any further amendments.
You're on the right track, but while the left doesn't have any respect for the Constitution, they DO recognize that it's an obstacle to their agenda and goals. So they would give a rat's ass about stopping any amendment which would potentially make the Constitution MORE of an obstacle.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,214
Reaction score
10,811
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.
How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?
Actually the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution:

Article III. " The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "

I don't get your solution. The number is set at 9 by Congress. If Congress eliminates the filibuster, then a simple majority could change the number say from nine to 15. If congress passes a law prohibiting that, then the way to change it would still be the same.

Only a Constitutional amendment would prevent congress from increasing the court from nine to say 15 without another Constitutional amendment
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,378
Reaction score
27,147
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?
Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.
How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?
Actually the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution:

Article III. " The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "

I don't get your solution. The number is set at 9 by Congress. If Congress eliminates the filibuster, then a simple majority could change the number say from nine to 15. If congress passes a law prohibiting that, then the way to change it would still be the same.

Only a Constitutional amendment would prevent congress from increasing the court from nine to say 15 without another Constitutional amendment
"If" is for children.....You're sounding like leftist making strawman "whatabout" anti-gun arguments.

In any event, isn't it already plain to you that the Constitution is already a dead letter?...Even if you're right, what would be the point if the USSC came along and struck it down?....After Marbury, anything is possible.
 
Last edited:

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
9,927
Reaction score
1,915
Points
290
Location
State 48
How about an amendment that the Senate can't indefinitely delay a vote on a Supreme Court nominee?
That is how I've been seeing things as well. I'd just tweak it to extend that to presidential appointment of federal judges at all levels. Give the Senate a reasonable amount of time to get off their duffs and do their jobs. Then if they haven't finished their process in lets say 6 weeks, the appointment automatically goes through.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top