- Dec 1, 2010
- Reaction score
That really doesn't make a lot of sense."If" is for children.....You're sounding like leftist making strawman anti-gun arguments.Actually the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution:How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.Don't need one.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?
The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.
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
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.
- Your plan doesn't change anything. Now, congress can change the number from 9 to higher. After your law it would be exactly the same.
- Sure, if the SCOTUS ignores a constitutional amendment and you're right that history says they have no hesitation to do that, then congress still couldn't change it themselves without the SCOTUS.
Also, we are discussing this transactional issue. Your assigning my transaction view to be my general view on the Constitution is a logical fallacy. I've repeatedly said that our government is illegitimate and should be overthrown. It routinely ignored the limits on it's power place on it by the people, the Constitution