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

[BS Filter]

Like what?

The lottery idea. There's nothing broken with the Supreme Court that needs fixing.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Nope. I’d love to have constitutionally honest judges for all time. But that is up to the ebbs and flows of which Administration makes the nominations and which Party has control of the Senate at those times.

What we don’t want is the court packing shit where you simply add more justices nominated based on the needs of the moment to fully politicize the court.

 

[Winco]

The lottery idea. There's nothing broken with the Supreme Court that needs fixing.

I'll NOTE this, so when something doesn't go your way, I'll expect you to still agree that nothing is broken.

 

[BS Filter]

I'll NOTE this, so when something doesn't go your way, I'll expect you to still agree that nothing is broken.

Of course. I'm allowed to disagree with the decision just like everyone. Obviously, you believe the court is broken. I suspect your reasoning is the fact that the court is going to be majority conservative for a long time, so your plan would at least provide a majority liberal decision once in a while. Right?

 

[Winco]

Of course. I'm allowed to disagree with the decision just like everyone. Obviously, you believe the court is broken. I suspect your reasoning is the fact that the court is going to be majority conservative for a long time, so your plan would at least provide a majority liberal decision once in a while. Right?

And your reason would be fear of a liberal decision.
I get it.

 

[BS Filter]

And your reason would be fear of a liberal decision.
I get it.

No, not fear. You're attempting to manipulate the Constitution to get advantage. Why not admit it.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

And removing that option addresses that problem.

The number of justices will never be irrelevent to that fact. If the option remains to add justices when those in power see it as a viable option to increase it they will.

Wanting that to not be the case is just silly. That is about as effective as yelling at the clouds. If you want to change it then you need to change the process.

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.

They do. Within the framework of cases that have been appealed to them.

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

So you want them to be computers?

What is the 'correct' interpretation of the second amendment? If a judge were to disagree with that interpretation are they then unqualified? What are you using to measure said political bias and where is the line?

Essentially you have said a lot of meaningless platitudes. Everyone says they do not want political biases to effect the court but, once again, that is flatly impossible in a system that includes people. Particularly when those people are specifically tasked with interpretation that effects 350 million people.

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?

No, it is not 'to much.' It is ignoring reality. We passed to much.

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….

Then change the system. Changing by, say, adding limits to ways political actors can influence the court. You know, like packing it?

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 ….

We will never fix the system if we oppose changes because they are not complete fixes. Setting a constitutional limit on the number of judges is one such way to start fixing it.

I just wish that was Cruz' actual intent. Like I said, the form of the bill shows it is just political games.

 

[JoeMoma]

A row of the dice?

I assume you read the post I was responding to about having 11 justices for SCOTUS, but 9 hear any given case. The roll of the dice would be which 9 out of the 11 are the justices for a particular case.

 

[FA_Q2]

I assume you read the post I was responding to about having 11 justices for SCOTUS, but 9 hear any given case. The roll of the dice would be which 9 out of the 11 are the justices for a particular case.

A set order makes sense.

A roll of the dice does not. If there is random chance and a particular case comes up, like the one that overturned Roe, it would cause larger problems if it was decided by a chance process. It also would incentivize brining a case or passing a bad law multiple times in an effort to get a favorable roll.

 

[22lcidw]

Term limits are tough due to who is in power when judges are nominated. Progs took a punch with Trump on the Federal level with the Trump mistake of him winning the 2016 election. Progs use government as private business owners use their way. Only government ends up liquidating people.

 

[Kondor3]

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….”

Keep in mind that the purpose of an amendment to the Constitution is to AMEND the Constitution...

If the Constitution is amended to say that SCOTUS shall forevermore consist of nine justices, then what it had said prior to that doesn't matter any more...

Tweak the proposed amendment to stipulate nine justices and include language about POTUS filling vacancies and that particular 'deficiency evaporates.

 

[JoeMoma]

A set order makes sense.

A roll of the dice does not. If there is random chance and a particular case comes up, like the one that overturned Roe, it would cause larger problems if it was decided by a chance process. It also would incentivize brining a case or passing a bad law multiple times in an effort to get a favorable roll.

Good point. Just so it's clear, I was not supporting or opposing the 11 justice , 9 try a case with 2 alternates idea that I first responded to.

 

[AsherN]

10 year terms and they are out.....must be nice getting appointed for a life time job.....

1 per Federal district. Term is 1 year more than the number of district, with the outgoing one serving as Chief Justice in the last year of the term. Districts nominate their own candidates.

 

[Independent thinker]

Does he think he can get a convention of states or 2/3 of Congress and ultimately approved by 3/4 of the states to achieve this or is he just trying to get in some headlines?

Just like with congressional term limits, I suspect the latter.

LOL. The left do things all the time for political advantage, knowing that they can't get the required votes. They even impeached Trump twice knowing that.

 

[Catsnmeters]

LOL. The left do things all the time for political advantage, knowing that they can't get the required votes. They even impeached Trump twice knowing that.

Not saying it doesn't happen with Dems too, but impeachment is a bad example. That isn't legislation or policy.

 

[Independent thinker]

Not saying it doesn't happen with Dems too, but impeachment is a bad example. That isn't legislation or policy.

LOL. Well, it certainly was policy and fits right in with what you were talking about. You were against Cruz for proposing something that had little chance of passing even as Democrats impeached Trump twice, knowing he wouldn't be removed from office both times. We've also had the dems proposing more seats to the Supreme Court, adding blue states to the Union, and wanting to change the electoral college, all close to impossible. Didn't see you calling out the dems on any of that.

 

[Catsnmeters]

LOL. Well, it certainly was policy and fits right in with what you were talking about. You were against Cruz for proposing something that had little chance of passing even as Democrats impeached Trump twice, knowing he wouldn't be removed from office both times. We've also had the dems proposing more seats to the Supreme Court, adding blue states to the Union, and wanting to change the electoral college, all close to impossible. Didn't see you calling out the dems on any of that.

I wasn't necessarily against it, certainly he has that right; I was just pointing out the futility of such legislation... especially since many don't realize the difficulty of constitutional amendments. (Think congressional term limits as an example that people seem to think Congress can just vote for it).

Adding more seats to the supreme court does not require a constitutional amendment.

I do appose changes to the electorial college but I don't really see those types of thread on these sites.

That said, if your point is I am more inclined to judge Republican policy, sure; me and literally everyone else on this board is the same way to widely varying degrees.

 

[Independent thinker]

I wasn't necessarily against it, certainly he has that right; I was just pointing out the futility of such legislation... especially since many don't realize the difficulty of constitutional amendments. (Think congressional term limits as an example that people seem to think Congress can just vote for it).

Adding more seats to the supreme court does not require a constitutional amendment.

I do appose changes to the electorial college but I don't really see those types of thread on these sites.

That said, if your point is I am more inclined to judge Republican policy, sure; me and literally everyone else on this board is the same way to widely varying degrees.

Very same futility of Trump's two impeachments as well as the other things I pointed out.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. I’d love to have constitutionally honest judges for all time. But that is up to the ebbs and flows of which Administration makes the nominations and which Party has control of the Senate at those times.

What we don’t want is the court packing shit where you simply add more justices nominated based on the needs of the moment to fully politicize the court.

Ok, but isn’t that what the right did? I mean, that’s what the dems claim anyway. The right stalled on garland and then got lucky and got 2 more picks under trump, and now they want to lock that in.

The left will say it’s court packing.

I just don’t see a valid reason for setting a limit on the number of justices, except for the sole purpose of locking one side out.

It also can backfire too…

 

[ThisIsMe]

And removing that option addresses that problem.

The number of justices will never be irrelevent to that fact. If the option remains to add justices when those in power see it as a viable option to increase it they will.

Wanting that to not be the case is just silly. That is about as effective as yelling at the clouds. If you want to change it then you need to change the process.

They do. Within the framework of cases that have been appealed to them.

So you want them to be computers?

What is the 'correct' interpretation of the second amendment? If a judge were to disagree with that interpretation are they then unqualified? What are you using to measure said political bias and where is the line?

Essentially you have said a lot of meaningless platitudes. Everyone says they do not want political biases to effect the court but, once again, that is flatly impossible in a system that includes people. Particularly when those people are specifically tasked with interpretation that effects 350 million people.

No, it is not 'to much.' It is ignoring reality. We passed to much.


Then change the system. Changing by, say, adding limits to ways political actors can influence the court. You know, like packing it?

We will never fix the system if we oppose changes because they are not complete fixes. Setting a constitutional limit on the number of judges is one such way to start fixing it.

I just wish that was Cruz' actual intent. Like I said, the form of the bill shows it is just political games.

I understand the reasoning, but the left will never see it as fixing the problem, they will only ever see it as the right trying to cement a majority for many years to come. In this case, I think they’re right. When it comes to scotus, I don’t trust the right any more than I do the left.

So you want them to be computers?

Honestly….what is a better alternative? Any justice that uses personal feelings when making a decision will always be suspicious of bias. I mean, yeah, in any other case, people using humanity to make decisions is a good thing, but in law, shouldn’t it be one way or another? When we start allowing varying opinions on what a law means…then does the law really mean anything at all?

What is the 'correct' interpretation of the second amendment? If a judge were to disagree with that interpretation are they then unqualified? What are you using to measure said political bias and where is the line?

Good point. What does the text of the cotus say? “Shall not be infringed”. Perhaps I’m being too much of a literalist, but I think you kind of have to be. If not, if we can start to interpret the meanings, then does the cotus hold any weight at all? We then get into different people thinking it means different things, and then the real meaning and intent gets lost.

Perhaps a convention if states is needed to update and define the cotus…though that’s a scary thought cause it could, invariably, destroy the cotus.

If we are going to limit the number of justices, then why wouldn’t it be a good idea to fix it so both sides have equal representation? Deadlock? We’ll, maybe that will force the justices to put aside their personal beliefs and try to look at the intent and letter of the law. I mean, all laws were written with a certain intent and goal in mind…so…if we are going to have a branch of government that is going to “interpret” the law, the really, shouldn’t they just be going back and looking at what the people who wrote the law meant? What their goal was? Honestly, I can’t believe, as wordy and jargon filled as “leagalize” is, that the definition of any law would ever be unclear. It’s written like that to be intentionally unambiguous I would think??