Constitutional Amendment to fix the Supreme Court

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,882
Reaction score
10,502
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
"If" is for children.....You're sounding like leftist making strawman 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.
That really doesn't make a lot of sense.

- 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
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,010
Reaction score
26,215
Points
2,260
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 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.
That really doesn't make a lot of sense.

- 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
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.

My view as well....Which would make the whole point of going through all the rigmarole, to create and try to pass a constitutional amendment, a monumental waste of time and effort.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,882
Reaction score
10,502
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
"If" is for children.....You're sounding like leftist making strawman 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.
That really doesn't make a lot of sense.

- 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
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.

My view as well....Which would make the whole point of going through all the rigmarole, to create and try to pass a constitutional amendment, a monumental waste of time and effort.
Well, we're screwed, we aren't going to fix it. I agree with that.

I'm just hoping since I'm in my 50s I can die before it happens. I'm willing to go to four corners at this point realizing eventually we'll lose anyway eventually
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
5,604
Reaction score
915
Points
245
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.
The USSC was created by the Constitution. It was limited by an act of Congress to 9 Judges. Congress has the power to change that act anyway it wants - but it'd require a Presidential signature or a veto override by the Senate.
 

MadChemist

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
784
Reaction score
198
Points
90
I have liked the idea of two justices appointed every presidential term, with the Chief Justice appointed on the fifth term. 20 years on the bench is more than enough.
Yea, setting the maximum number of years could also work.
It would be a real game changer.
I don't agree with this approach.

The SCOTUS is to be independent from the other branches of government.

What you propose is that whatever group is in power will appoint justices which now starts to create to much of a connection to the group itself.

The idea was to keep them disconnected.
 

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,638
Reaction score
3,326
Points
280
What you propose is that whatever group is in power will appoint justices which now starts to create to much of a connection to the group itself.
Whatever group is in power already appoints justices. Rotational 20 year term limits would prevent fate (or ailing justices themselves) from packing the court in one direction or another.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
47,699
Reaction score
9,945
Points
2,030
I have liked the idea of two justices appointed every presidential term, with the Chief Justice appointed on the fifth term. 20 years on the bench is more than enough.
Yea, setting the maximum number of years could also work.
It would be a real game changer.
I don't agree with this approach.

The SCOTUS is to be independent from the other branches of government.

What you propose is that whatever group is in power will appoint justices which now starts to create to much of a connection to the group itself.

The idea was to keep them disconnected.
Like the way they're disconnected now?
 

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
62,030
Reaction score
14,082
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA

Last week, two congressmen, Denver Riggleman (R-VA) and Collin C. Peterson (D-MN) introduced a “Keep Nine” measure which would effectively set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine.
“The independence and non-partisan nature of the Supreme Court of the United States is a core aspect of American government,” Riggleman said in a statement.
“I am proud to lead this bipartisan legislation that keeps the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine and ensures partisan desires to ‘pack the court’ won’t result in a Court that has been undermined by politics,” he continued.
Rep. Peterson added that it is “vital that we preserve” the independence of the Supreme Court.
“I worry that partisan attempts to change the size of the court will set off a judicial arms race which will further divide our country. If one party succeeds in packing the Court, the next party to hold a majority may choose to do the same in retaliation,” he explained, adding that his amendment will “preserve the integrity of the Court and permanently protect Americans from these dangerous proposals.”....
A survey, conducted by McLaughlin and Associates from Sept 23 – 27 among 1,000 registered, likely voters, found that 62 percent favor the amendment, as opposed to the 18 percent who do not.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
833
Reaction score
459
Points
888
Location
Transient
The judiciary is not
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?
It would more accurately separate the judiciary from the partisan control from the executive and legislative branches, and it would fulfill the checks and balances aspect that was lost with the 17th Amendment that initiated state-wide elections of the senators. And, I do not think it would be as difficult as you seem to believe it would be.
 
Last edited:

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
833
Reaction score
459
Points
888
Location
Transient
I've repeatedly said that our government is illegitimate and should be overthrown.
Prove that you have made such a statement at least twice in the past. A simple search comes up with only this posting.

Please explain your vision of the restart of the government in a new discussion. Do not continue a derail, please.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,010
Reaction score
26,215
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
I've repeatedly said that our government is illegitimate and should be overthrown.
Prove that you have made such a statement at least twice in the past. A simple search comes up with only this posting.

Please explain your vision of the restart of the government in a new discussion. Do not continue a derail, please.
I was quoting and talking to my bud kaz....As an ancap/agorist, I have no vision for restarting any gubmint at all.

Now buzz off.
 

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
21,692
Reaction score
4,490
Points
280
Location
Michigan
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.
Not so fast. The USSC was established by the US Constitution.
No, it was established by an act of congress.

And again, you're wrong. USSC is court established by the US Constitution. Read article III Section 1.
It was not established at all...It says judicial power would be vested there, but is absolutely silent insofar as its creation and regulation are concerned.

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.

If the Constitution created USSC, then why was the Judicial Act of 1789 even necessary?
To regulate it. The constitution established SCOTUS, and allowed Congress to establish lower courts.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
833
Reaction score
459
Points
888
Location
Transient
It would more accurately separate the judiciary from the partisan control from the executive and legislative branches, and it would fulfill the checks and balances aspect that was lost with the 17th Amendment that initiated state-wide elections of the senators. And, I do not think it would be as difficult as you seem to believe it would be.
And it would prevent the possibility of "packing the Court," as is being contested in contemporary politics.
 

MadChemist

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
784
Reaction score
198
Points
90
What you propose is that whatever group is in power will appoint justices which now starts to create to much of a connection to the group itself.
Whatever group is in power already appoints justices. Rotational 20 year term limits would prevent fate (or ailing justices themselves) from packing the court in one direction or another.
I might be O.K. with a "term limit"

However, we need to keep in mind that this branch is to be independent.

I used to advocate electing them.

Now I am against that idea.

I almost think both sides get to nominate 10....we put the names in a hat and pick one.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
19,931
Reaction score
3,107
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
What you propose is that whatever group is in power will appoint justices which now starts to create to much of a connection to the group itself.
Whatever group is in power already appoints justices. Rotational 20 year term limits would prevent fate (or ailing justices themselves) from packing the court in one direction or another.
I might be O.K. with a "term limit"

However, we need to keep in mind that this branch is to be independent.

I used to advocate electing them.

Now I am against that idea.

I almost think both sides get to nominate 10....we put the names in a hat and pick one.
This whole thing is a Rump and Party of the Rump scare and fear tactic. The ones in charge in the Dems don't even bring it up and have all stated that they don't support it. Yes, even Biden says he isn't in favor of it. And Pelosi has also said she would not support it and if she won't support it it's a dead issue.

The Party of the Rump is in full panic mode right now and is looking for anything they can to keep the panic that they continuously do to keep happening. What they don't understand is, we, the people, want a day without reading or hearing the news every day that scares the living hell out of us.
 

Prof.Lunaphiles

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2020
Messages
833
Reaction score
459
Points
888
Location
Transient
I might be O.K. with a "term limit" However, we need to keep in mind that this branch is to be independent.
Exactly. It was a much more difficult problem 200 years ago when there were not so many attorneys available.

I used to advocate electing them.
There are way too many offices already for the average citizen to comprehend and evaluate candidates. There are courts that are elected, and it is a real shame, because there is no way average citizens know the candidates' work histories.

I almost think both sides get to nominate 10....we put the names in a hat and pick one.
Not bad, but I think the judiciary organizations should promote their own - they know each other, and are going to keep it clean, because they won't be influenced by the partisan efforts in the legislatures. They may form their own factions and that may lead to reforms that the average citizens cannot comprehend, but ultimately lead to charters that cannot be interpreted in multiple ways.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top