Ted Cruz To Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Lock Supreme Court At Nine Justices

[Winco]

Just creates more problems. Depending on the case, the supporters and anti for each case will be shopping.

Random draw I said.
If the draw for a high profile case ( Or ANY case) comes out
5 Conservative Judges and 4 Liberal Judges, then it is what it is.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Perhaps this particular one should not pass as it clearly avoids dealing with the democrats problem. I would absolutely support an amendment that both locks the number of judges up AND puts specific requirements, including time deadlines, on how congress gives its 'consent.'

The process of adding judges needs to be refined as congress has proven they will abuse the system. There should be a time constraint given to congress to hold the vote and removes the majority leader from being able to play games with it in general. Of course Cruz is not going to draft anything like that, it might actually have support.

We’ll, I think there are things that need to be fixed on the scotus…but the size is not one of them.

First, it is my understanding that the job of scotus was to make sure that laws that congress are passing adhered to the cotus…not taking up civil cases and stuff….am I wrong?

Second, we need to appoint justices based on their knowledge, love, and adherence to the cotus…not to their ideology. This legislating from the bench needs to end, as does decisions made for political reasons.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Wouldn’t need a convention of states because they are not amending cotus. The cotus doesn’t specify the number of judges.

1. That would mean the thread title is wrong.

2. In my opinion, not true. Right now their are no restrictions on the number of judges as per the constitution. If you add a restriction, then you are changing the constitution.

An example of this see the below link for the attempted congressional term limits. Term limits vs Thornton.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECCYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2xZiBKJa0a3TynOlR0rNSF

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Works for me in theory; however, it will make many decisions be "a row of the dice"

A row of the dice?

 

[BackAgain]

I don’t think Cruz trying to rig the courts in favor of the conservatives is any more honorable than the democrats trying to increase the number so they can have a majority.

Nobody can foresee it now, but what if there were to arise a need to increase…or shrink the size of the scotus?

The fact that we are trying to cement scotus is an example of how broken it is. I mean…if scotus decided things based on the constitution and not their personal political biases…it wouldn’t matter how many justices there were.

I don’t care what side a scotus justice decides something, as long as that decision is made with the cotus as the focal point.

Keeping it at 9 justices isn’t rigging the court.

 

[BackAgain]

i like Ted Cruz. everything about him. his acerbic sense of humor, the fact that he's so hated by most of the other Senators. it's like if Trump was a Senator

He speaks a lot of the truth. So the fact that many other Senators don’t like him only reinforces for me that we need more Senators like Cruz.

 

[Dragonlady]

i think it's a good idea. though some reforms are needed to prevent politicization of the SC

EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Ted Cruz To Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Lock Supreme Court At Nine Justices

Sen. Ted Cruz will reintroduce a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would make sure only nine justices can serve on the U.S. Supreme Court at a time.

dailycaller.com

It's way past too late to prevent politicization of the Court. That's been going on since Clinton was in office.

The Court has been thoroughly corrupted and politicized, as we've seen with their eagerness to overturn precedent after lying in the confirmation hearings saying that established precedent should not be overturned.

I say this after hearing the news that the largest hospital in Idaho has closed it's maternity ward. It's more than an hour's drive from that community to the nearest hospital with an open maternity ward. The spokeswoman for the hospital said 2/3 of the counties in the state don't have an OB/GYN so pregnant women have no care in having babies. She wryly observed that every single one of these counties has a veterarian. Pregnant animals get better care than women.

Idaho has some of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the USA, and felony convictions for any doctor performing an abortion. Doctors are fleeing the state.

The USA has the highest rate of maternal death in child birth, in the first world. And the politicized Supreme Court has made a complete mess of maternal health care in the USA. So much so that women are suing the state of Texas because they had to be DYING or go out of state before they could receive care for problems in their pregnancies that could have been dealt with except for laws written by far right extremists in Texas.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We’ll, I think there are things that need to be fixed on the scotus…but the size is not one of them.

First, it is my understanding that the job of scotus was to make sure that laws that congress are passing adhered to the cotus…not taking up civil cases and stuff….am I wrong?

Second, we need to appoint justices based on their knowledge, love, and adherence to the cotus…not to their ideology. This legislating from the bench needs to end, as does decisions made for political reasons.

Definitely, you are wrong.

 

[ThisIsMe]

1. That would mean the thread title is wrong.

2. In my opinion, not true. Right now their are no restrictions on the number of judges as per the constitution. If you add a restriction, then you are changing the constitution.

An example of this see the below link for the attempted congressional term limits. Term limits vs Thornton.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECCYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2xZiBKJa0a3TynOlR0rNSF

That would mean the thread title is wrong.

Oops, you’re right, I didn’t read the title properly.

Right now their are no restrictions on the number of judges as per the constitution. If you add a restriction, then you are changing the constitution.

After having thought about it for a second, I think you are right, because, the cotus says the potus can nominate justices for the scotus. If the potus is unable to appoint justices to the scotus because of a scotus limit, then it would violate the cotus. So, in order to fix the size of scotus, cotus must be changed.

I hope that clears it up!

 

[ThisIsMe]

Keeping it at 9 justices isn’t rigging the court.

We’ll, it kind of is if the amendment is being proposed to prevent possible dems from increasing the size of it so they can stack more liberal judges.

 

[Kondor3]

i think it's a good idea. though some reforms are needed to prevent politicization of the SC

EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Ted Cruz To Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Lock Supreme Court At Nine Justices

Sen. Ted Cruz will reintroduce a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would make sure only nine justices can serve on the U.S. Supreme Court at a time.

dailycaller.com

Agreed. Nine justices are enough. Time to lock that down.

 

[Kondor3]

Oops, you’re right, I didn’t read the title properly.




After having thought about it for a second, I think you are right, because, the cotus says the potus can nominate justices for the scotus. If the potus is unable to appoint justices to the scotus because of a scotus limit, then it would violate the cotus. So, in order to fix the size of scotus, cotus must be changed.

I hope that clears it up!

That's not the way I see it.

The implication is that the President can appoint a justice when there is a vacacy.

No vacancy, no appointment necessary.

But maybe Cruz can tweak the draft to include language to explicitly clarify that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Definitely, you are wrong.

Ok, then correct me? Is the scotus not tasked with making sure that all laws are constitutional? Is it not tasked with defending the cotus? Is it not tasked with equal justice under the law in cases arising from controversies regarding the cotus or the laws?

I mean

“The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”

Kinda eludes to that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That's not the way I see it.

The implication is that the President can appoint a justice when there is a vacacy.

No vacancy, no appointment necessary.

But maybe Cruz can tweak the draft to include language to explicitly clarify that.

But the cotus doesn’t specify that. It simply says “the president can nominate….and senate confirm…”. If you do anything to prevent the potus from nominating and the senate approving, the you run afoul of the cotus, because the cotus doesn’t mention vacancies…it just says “potus CAN do….”

 

[FA_Q2]

We’ll, I think there are things that need to be fixed on the scotus…but the size is not one of them.

Why not?

Size is being used right now to threaten the court. It has been done in the past as well and forced the court to do what the president wanted. This is not new.

First, it is my understanding that the job of scotus was to make sure that laws that congress are passing adhered to the cotus…not taking up civil cases and stuff….am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong.

They do not review laws that congress passes. They review cases and those cases may or may not impact existing law. They do take up civil cases as well though that is very rare. SCOTUS requires a party to challenge the law in the first place which also requires someone to be impacted by that law in a manner that allows them to bring the suit.

What do you mean with 'not taking up civil cases and stuff' as I do not think you are using that term correctly. Are you American?

There is room for reform here as well considering this is how the PA was originally able to avoid SCOTUS scrutiny. Because it operates in the shadows, no one had the standing to challenge what was a clearly unconstitutional law IMHO.

Second, we need to appoint justices based on their knowledge, love, and adherence to the cotus…not to their ideology. This legislating from the bench needs to end, as does decisions made for political reasons.

We do.

Ideology is just a fact of life with appointing anyone. One side always seems to think that the judges are legislating from the bench because they disagree with the understanding of the constitution that the other side has. There is flatly no way around this reality. You think any particular judge on the court is not qualified?

Is Kavanaugh a 'political' pick? What about Jackson? Who is not a political pick? We can certainly dream of a world and system where the ideology of people does not effect who gets on the court but we might as well wish we lived in Middle Earth.

 

[BackAgain]

We’ll, it kind of is if the amendment is being proposed to prevent possible dems from increasing the size of it so they can stack more liberal judges.

No. It is, instead, an effort to prevent the stacking of the court for that illicit purpose.

 

[BS Filter]

Random draw I said.
If the draw for a high profile case ( Or ANY case) comes out
5 Conservative Judges and 4 Liberal Judges, then it is what it is.

Still don't like it. More opportunity for shenanigans.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why not?

Size is being used right now to threaten the court. It has been done in the past as well and forced the court to do what the president wanted. This is not new.

Yes, you are wrong.

They do not review laws that congress passes. They review cases and those cases may or may not impact existing law. They do take up civil cases as well though that is very rare. SCOTUS requires a party to challenge the law in the first place which also requires someone to be impacted by that law in a manner that allows them to bring the suit.

What do you mean with 'not taking up civil cases and stuff' as I do not think you are using that term correctly. Are you American?

There is room for reform here as well considering this is how the PA was originally able to avoid SCOTUS scrutiny. Because it operates in the shadows, no one had the standing to challenge what was a clearly unconstitutional law IMHO.


We do.

Ideology is just a fact of life with appointing anyone. One side always seems to think that the judges are legislating from the bench because they disagree with the understanding of the constitution that the other side has. There is flatly no way around this reality. You think any particular judge on the court is not qualified?

Is Kavanaugh a 'political' pick? What about Jackson? Who is not a political pick? We can certainly dream of a world and system where the ideology of people does not effect who gets on the court but we might as well wish we lived in Middle Earth.

Why not?

Size is being used right now to threaten the court. It has been done in the past as well and forced the court to do what the president wanted. This is not new.

I know, both sides want to threaten to stack the court to be able to maintain their political agenda. THAT is the problem. In my mind, justice is supposed to be neutral, not political. I’ve always maintained that the very reason we fight over judicial appointments should be all you need to know about them. Like I said, if justices were all students of the intents and purposes of the constitution, and decided cases based on what the framers wanted the cotus to be, instead of putting their own political slant on it, the number of justices would be irrelevant. I guess I’m asking for too much though.

They do not review laws that congress passes. They review cases and those cases may or may not impact existing law. They do take up civil cases as well though that is very rare. SCOTUS requires a party to challenge the law in the first place which also requires someone to be impacted by that law in a manner that allows them to bring the suit.

Hmm, I always thought the job of the scotus was to interpret the cotus, and make sure laws and controversies arising from differences in opinion on the cotus were settled with equal justice.

You think any particular judge on the court is not qualified?

I think any justice who lets their own political bias affect their decisions is unqualified. That’s not what “justice” is supposed to be.

Ideology is just a fact of life with appointing anyone.

And I would hope that anyone who has the mental fortitude to serve on the nations highest court would also have the integrity to be truly non partisan. Again, am I hoping for too much?

Is Kavanaugh a 'political' pick? What about Jackson? Who is not a political pick? We can certainly dream of a world and system where the ideology of people does not effect who gets on the court but we might as well wish we lived in Middle Earth.

All of them are political picks. I agree, we certainly can dream of a truly unbiased court….but until that is achieved, the scotus will be broken. My opinion….

I believe for it to work properly, it can’t be biased, in any way, because no two parties can agree, so we have to have a court system that takes no influence from either side, and just does what is right by the law.

Again, it’s a pipe dream, especially in todays political climate….maybe one day ….

 

[Winco]

Still don't like it. More opportunity for shenanigans.

Like what?

 

[ThisIsMe]

No. It is, instead, an effort to prevent the stacking of the court for that illicit purpose.

Ok, but then the left will say “you appointed the judges to achieve a right wing majority…and now you want to lock it that way for decades to come!”

Would that be fair? Also, if you know the size of the scotus will never change, what’s to stop one side one day from “urging” a coupe of the older justices to retire so they can make picks that would lock the court to one favor for the next 30 years.

How about we say the court is locked at 10, but it must be 5 democrats and 5 repubs…and the potus can only appoint justices when one of their side has a vacancy…I know, that won’t work either.



Or better yet, just make sure justices only make decisions based on the letter of the law, guided by the cotus.

I guess my point is, we have enough partisanship in congress, but our court system is supposed to be the one place where everyone gets a fair shake, regardless of what political stance you come from.