Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional By The Supreme Court

[Viktor]

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

Under the principle of judicial review established in the case of Marbury vs Madison(1803), the Supreme Ct can invalidate any law it decides violates any provision of the United States Constitution.

Any attempt to pack the Supreme Court with Liberal judges would be subject to review by the Supreme Ct.

 

[JoeMoma]

Congress has the constitutional authority to pass a law (subject to presidential veto) to set the number of supreme court justices. If such a law increasing the number of justices is passed, it is very unlikely that the law would be overruled by the supreme court since precedent for such law has already been established.

 

[pknopp]

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

Under the principle of judicial review established in the case of Marbury vs Madison(1803), the Supreme Ct can invalidate any law it decides violates any provision of the United States Constitution.

Any attempt to pack the Supreme Court with Liberal judges would be subject to review by the Supreme Ct.

Congress sets the number of justices, not the supreme court per the Constitution. There would be nothing for them to over rule.

 

[Viktor]

message deleted

 

[konradv]

NYET. FDR tried court packing and the SC invalidated it.

No, it didn't. The legislation never passed Congress, so there was nothing to rule on either way, since the Constitution doesn't set the number of justices.

 

[Viktor]

NYET. FDR tried court packing and the SC invalidated it.

No, it didn't. The legislation never passed Congress, so there was nothing to rule on either way, since the Constitution doesn't set the number of justices.

It does not have to set any such thing. The number of justices has been the same for over 100 years. That is legal precedent.The reasons for the court packing would be examined by the justices and, since it is only a political scheme to give one party control, it would fail.

 

[pknopp]

message deleted

No they didn't. It simply never passed.

 

[Viktor]

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

Under the principle of judicial review established in the case of Marbury vs Madison(1803), the Supreme Ct can invalidate any law it decides violates any provision of the United States Constitution.

Any attempt to pack the Supreme Court with Liberal judges would be subject to review by the Supreme Ct.

Congress sets the number of justices, not the supreme court per the Constitution. There would be nothing for them to over rule.

Bullshit. Changing the number of justices would be done by legislation. The Supreme Ct can strike down any legislation passed by Congress. That's what judicial review means.

 

[pknopp]

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

Under the principle of judicial review established in the case of Marbury vs Madison(1803), the Supreme Ct can invalidate any law it decides violates any provision of the United States Constitution.

Any attempt to pack the Supreme Court with Liberal judges would be subject to review by the Supreme Ct.

Congress sets the number of justices, not the supreme court per the Constitution. There would be nothing for them to over rule.

Bullshit. Changing the number of justices would be done by legislation. The Supreme Ct can strike down any legislation passed by Congress. That's what judicial review means.

No they can not. They can only strike down unconstitutional laws. The Constitution clearly says Congress can set the number of justices. But you know this by now.

 

[Viktor]

Congress has the constitutional authority to pass a law (subject to presidential veto) to set the number of supreme court justices. If such a law increasing the number of justices is passed, it is very unlikely that the law would be overruled by the supreme court since precedent for such law has already been established.

Obviously, you have no idea how many times the SC has overruled precedent., Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 was one and Gideon vs Wainwright in 1962 was another. I will post a list of such overrulings in another thread.

 

[JoeMoma]

Congress has the constitutional authority to pass a law (subject to presidential veto) to set the number of supreme court justices. If such a law increasing the number of justices is passed, it is very unlikely that the law would be overruled by the supreme court since precedent for such law has already been established.

Obviously, you have no idea how many times the SC has overruled precedent., Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 was one and Gideon vs Wainwright in 1962 was another. I will post a list of such overrulings in another thread.

That is one reason I used the phrase "very unlikely". Also, it's not the supreme court's role to determine whether a law is a good law or a bad law. They are to rule on it's constitutionality.

 

[Camp]

Tea bagger trumpoholics are not smarter than any of our founders. Those guys gave authority to Congress for determining how many Justices are needed in any given period or era in our history or future.

 

[Viktor]

Tea bagger trumpoholics are not smarter than any of our founders. Those guys gave authority to Congress for determining how many Justices are needed in any given period or era in our history or future.

Adding more justices would reduce and dilute the authority of each justice presently sitting. Some of those justices might not like that.

 

[Camp]

Tea bagger trumpoholics are not smarter than any of our founders. Those guys gave authority to Congress for determining how many Justices are needed in any given period or era in our history or future.

Adding more justices would reduce and dilute the authority of each justice presently sitting. Some of those justices might not like that.

It's not up to them and they all know that Congress decides how many Justices sit on the court. Anyhow, you are only guessing how they would feel about it. They may feel the more the merrier. They may enjoy a smaller caseload.

 

[Viktor]

Tea bagger trumpoholics are not smarter than any of our founders. Those guys gave authority to Congress for determining how many Justices are needed in any given period or era in our history or future.

Adding more justices would reduce and dilute the authority of each justice presently sitting. Some of those justices might not like that.

It's not up to them and they all know that Congress decides how many Justices sit on the court. Anyhow, you are only guessing how they would feel about it. They may feel the more the merrier. They may enjoy a smaller caseload.

LOL! All the justices rule on each case they accept. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Viktor]

Tea bagger trumpoholics are not smarter than any of our founders. Those guys gave authority to Congress for determining how many Justices are needed in any given period or era in our history or future.

Who said anything about "smarter"????? Why are you trying to change the subject?

 

[Billiejeens]

NYET. FDR tried court packing and the SC invalidated it.

No, it didn't. The legislation never passed Congress, so there was nothing to rule on either way, since the Constitution doesn't set the number of justices.

It does not have to set any such thing. The number of justices has been the same for over 100 years. That is legal precedent.The reasons for the court packing would be examined by the justices and, since it is only a political scheme to give one party control, it would fail.

Probably
But who really knows with those fucks.

 

[Billiejeens]

Tea bagger trumpoholics are not smarter than any of our founders. Those guys gave authority to Congress for determining how many Justices are needed in any given period or era in our history or future.

Adding more justices would reduce and dilute the authority of each justice presently sitting. Some of those justices might not like that.

It's not up to them and they all know that Congress decides how many Justices sit on the court. Anyhow, you are only guessing how they would feel about it. They may feel the more the merrier. They may enjoy a smaller caseload.

Not how it works

 

[Agit8r]

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

Under the principle of judicial review established in the case of Marbury vs Madison(1803), the Supreme Ct can invalidate any law it decides violates any provision of the United States Constitution.

Any attempt to pack the Supreme Court with Liberal judges would be subject to review by the Supreme Ct.

There is no part of the constitution that forbids changing the number of justices. It has changed a few times already. It is the perogative of the Legislative Branch to change it legislatively.

 

[SavannahMann]

Ok. Help me out Scooter. Where is it in the Constitution that there can only be 9 Justices?