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

[Hector12]

I would like to require a two thirds majority for any Supreme Court decision, any Supreme Court decision could be overturned by a two thirds vote in each house of Congress and a presidential signature, and unpopular justices could be removed by a two thirds vote on a national referendum.

 

[BackAgain]

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…

None of your post supports any court packing scheme.

And by the way, refusing to confirm Garland is a part of “advice and consent. “ The consent part, in this instance, was to withhold consent.

And seeing how Garland behaves as AG, I can only say “thank God” he didn’t get confirmed to serve on the SCOTUS bench.

 

[Ralph Norton]

I would like to require a two thirds majority for any Supreme Court decision, any Supreme Court decision could be overturned by a two thirds vote in each house of Congress and a presidential signature, and unpopular justices could be removed by a two thirds vote on a national referendum.

The Judicial and Legislative branches are separate for a reason.

 

[rightwinger]

If that’s the entirety of the bill, I say kudos to Cruz (not that I agree with the bill) but…finally, a single issue bill, and a bill that isn’t 1000 pages.

This should serve as a model of how ALL bills should be.

It is not a bill…..It is a Constitutional Amendment

One that ignores current problems with the Supreme Court

 

[rightwinger]

None of your post supports any court packing scheme.

And by the way, refusing to confirm Garland is a part of “advice and consent. “ The consent part, in this instance, was to withhold consent.

And seeing how Garland behaves as AG, I can only say “thank God” he didn’t get confirmed to serve on the SCOTUS bench.

Ted Cruz is saying that Congress can’t add to the nine current justices. But he says nothing about Congress subtracting from the nine justices by refusing to act on vacancies

 

[Ralph Norton]

One that ignores current problems with the Supreme Court

Those problems would be?

 

[rightwinger]

Those problems would be?

1. Lifetime appointments
2. Partisan appointments/confirmation
3. Ability of Congress to refuse to fill a seat

 

[pyetro]

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

A constitutional amendment must be passed by both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority vote, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Good luck!

 

[Ralph Norton]

1. Lifetime appointments
2. Partisan appointments/confirmation
3. Ability of Congress to refuse to fill a seat

Why do I think that you would not have included #2 if this was a Liberal court?
But I can't disagree w/ #'s 1 & 3.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do I think that you would not have included #2 if this was a Liberal court?
But I can't disagree w/ #'s 1 & 3.

My reasoning is that court appointments have become strictly partisan and political

In previous generations, a President was provided the courtesy of making appointments to the court. Specific appointments were challenged for a reason and it was rarely done

Today, an opposition Senate will attempt to block all Court appointments. They are abusing their “advise and consent” (both parties) and it needs to be taken away from them

 

[BackAgain]

Ted Cruz is saying that Congress can’t add to the nine current justices. But he says nothing about Congress subtracting from the nine justices by refusing to act on vacancies

Zzzz

 

[rightwinger]

Zzzz

For someone claiming to be a Constitutional scholar, Cruz sure comes up with a lame amendment.

A Third Grader could have done a better job

 

[ThisIsMe]

None of your post supports any court packing scheme.

And by the way, refusing to confirm Garland is a part of “advice and consent. “ The consent part, in this instance, was to withhold consent.

And seeing how Garland behaves as AG, I can only say “thank God” he didn’t get confirmed to serve on the SCOTUS bench.

Not disagreeing with you there, I’m just pointing out how the left views it, and they will view this proposal by Cruz the same way.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It is not a bill…..It is a Constitutional Amendment

One that ignores current problems with the Supreme Court

Ahh, we’ll, it should still serve as a model of what bills should be like

 

[ThisIsMe]

A constitutional amendment must be passed by both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority vote, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Good luck!

Yeah, it’s never gonna happen…but it sure got us all arguing about it!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

They cannot rule on a law until a case is referred to SCOTUS.

The word is "alludes".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Yes, and I dismissed your complicated idiocy.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I would like to require a two thirds majority for any Supreme Court decision, any Supreme Court decision could be overturned by a two thirds vote in each house of Congress and a presidential signature, and unpopular justices could be removed by a two thirds vote on a national referendum.

So just throw the Constitution in the fucking trash? Idiot!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

For someone claiming to be a Constitutional scholar, Cruz sure comes up with a lame amendment.

A Third Grader could have done a better job

Let's see your wording third grader!

 

[Hector12]

So just throw the Constitution in the fucking trash? Idiot!

What I desire would require a constitutional amendment. If it was passed, the reform I advocate would be constitutional by definition.