The potential for SCOTUS "stacking" - IE - seating justices to change political makeup of court

[dcbl]

Many of you are probably familiar with the Roosevelt's "court packing" attempts & the Judicial Reform Bill of 1937

What does not get talked about much is The Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. In order for there to be more than nine, the U.S. Congress would have to pass a separate bill to override this act and that bill would have to be signed into law by the President.

SO, if/when the dems retain power; we could see this type of power play at least attempted (kind of surprised that Obama did not try this, either he and his team did not think of it, OR they were too nervous to try as all of their political capital was spent strong arming ACA through)

As I understand it, this would actually be pretty easy to do (although a dem majority Senate would likely have to remove the legislative filibuster, which would be unprecedented in US history)

Odds are that Trump gets AT LEAST 2 more nominations to SCOTUS & probably at least 3 (Kennedy, Thomas & Ginsburg) - if this happens, the ideological makeup of the court will shift right and be set for at least a generation

UNLESS, the dems can take both Houses of Congress & the WH & successfully pull this type of a plan off.

I FULLY expect them to at least try. The ONLY thing that could prevent it would be a Constitutional Amendment (which is HIGHLY unlikely) - thoughts?

 

[The Original Tree]

Many of you are probably familiar with the Roosevelt's "court packing" attempts & the Judicial Reform Bill of 1937

What does not get talked about much is The Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. In order for there to be more than nine, the U.S. Congress would have to pass a separate bill to override this act and that bill would have to be signed into law by the President.

SO, if/when the dems retain power; we could see this type of power play at least attempted (kind of surprised that Obama did not try this, either he and his team did not think of it, OR they were too nervous to try as all of their political capital was spent strong arming ACA through)

As I understand it, this would actually be pretty easy to do (although a dem majority Senate would likely have to remove the legislative filibuster, which would be unprecedented in US history)

Odds are that Trump gets AT LEAST 2 more nominations to SCOTUS & probably at least 3 (Kennedy, Thomas & Ginsburg) - if this happens, the ideological makeup of the court will shift right and be set for at least a generation

UNLESS, the dems can take both Houses of Congress & the WH & successfully pull this type of a plan off.

I FULLY expect them to at least try. The ONLY thing that could prevent it would be a Constitutional Amendment (which is HIGHLY unlikely) - thoughts?

Interesting point. Thanks.

 

[DarkFury]

If Trump gets to tip the court before the next run for president you may not see a liberal court for fifty years.
I think that maybe liberals will seek to age limit scotus in the future as such limits would destroy them right now.

 

[GaryDog]

Many of you are probably familiar with the Roosevelt's "court packing" attempts & the Judicial Reform Bill of 1937

What does not get talked about much is The Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. In order for there to be more than nine, the U.S. Congress would have to pass a separate bill to override this act and that bill would have to be signed into law by the President.

SO, if/when the dems retain power; we could see this type of power play at least attempted (kind of surprised that Obama did not try this, either he and his team did not think of it, OR they were too nervous to try as all of their political capital was spent strong arming ACA through)

As I understand it, this would actually be pretty easy to do (although a dem majority Senate would likely have to remove the legislative filibuster, which would be unprecedented in US history)

Odds are that Trump gets AT LEAST 2 more nominations to SCOTUS & probably at least 3 (Kennedy, Thomas & Ginsburg) - if this happens, the ideological makeup of the court will shift right and be set for at least a generation

UNLESS, the dems can take both Houses of Congress & the WH & successfully pull this type of a plan off.

I FULLY expect them to at least try. The ONLY thing that could prevent it would be a Constitutional Amendment (which is HIGHLY unlikely) - thoughts?

I don't think you understand what "at least" means.

Jesus what a dumb thread by a dumb poster.

 

[dcbl]

If Trump gets to tip the court before the next run for president you may not see a liberal court for fifty years.
I think that maybe liberals will seek to age limit scotus in the future as such limits would destroy them right now.

hope so

 

[dcbl]

I don't think you understand what "at least" means.

Jesus what a dumb thread by a dumb poster.

is that the best you've got?

why am I not surprised...

 

[yiostheoy]

I remember learning about court stuffing, but now who started it.

Thanks for your summary of the history of it.

I think Kennedy and Thomas will retire voluntarily because now is the best time, with the Senate GOP and the White House GOP too.

There is a chance that Ginsberg will croak too.

I doubt Breyer [edit] will quit though. He will try to wait for a DEM Senate at least.

The Senate and the People (SPQR) of the USA are fickle and can change any time. For the next 2 years however the GOP is safely in charge.

 

[yiostheoy]

If Trump gets to tip the court before the next run for president you may not see a liberal court for fifty years.
I think that maybe liberals will seek to age limit scotus in the future as such limits would destroy them right now.

20 years is more likely if you want to put a label on it.

And the only guarantee is that the Senate will remain GOP for the next 2 years. Not 4.

 

[yiostheoy]

I don't think you understand what "at least" means.

Jesus what a dumb thread by a dumb poster.

No justification given for your opinion.

Then an ad hom on top of it.

How ludicrous.

 

[dcbl]

And the only guarantee is that the Senate will remain GOP for the next 2 years. Not 4.

odds are we lose 10 - 15 in the House in 2018, but pick up 2 - 5 seats in the Senate - based on who is up for re-election and the political make-up of their states

 

[DarkFury]

If Trump gets to tip the court before the next run for president you may not see a liberal court for fifty years.
I think that maybe liberals will seek to age limit scotus in the future as such limits would destroy them right now.

20 years is more likely if you want to put a label on it.

And the only guarantee is that the Senate will remain GOP for the next 2 years. Not 4.

Your only talking changing the members I am looking at the ability to change the laws. Most existing court rulings stand but with a stacked court for 8 years alone could change policy for fifty!

 

[yiostheoy]

And the only guarantee is that the Senate will remain GOP for the next 2 years. Not 4.

odds are we lost 10 - 15 in the House in 2018, but pick up 2 - 5 seats in the Senate - based on who is up for re-election and the political make-up of their states

I hope you are right.

This would indeed spell the end of Ginsberg for sure and maybe Breyer as well.

 

[task0778]

If Trump gets to tip the court before the next run for president you may not see a liberal court for fifty years.
I think that maybe liberals will seek to age limit scotus in the future as such limits would destroy them right now.

Don't know about an age limit, but I think every federal judge from the SCOTUS on down ought to be re-confirmed every 10 years rather than a lifetime appt.

BTW, I must've missed the part in the Constitution where it says SCOTUS justices are appointed for life. It says something about 'Good Behavior', no? So, is there any law that says what that means? Maybe there should be, for every federal judge, not just the Supremes.

 

[dcbl]

I hope you are right.

good reading:

United States Senate elections, 2018 - Wikipedia

Joe Manchin in WV probably switches parties or gets defeated

Heidi Heitkamp in ND likely loses

Jon Tester in MT is in serious trouble

Claire McCaskill in MO - another dem senator in a strong red state

Joe Donnelly in IN - that's FIVE in states that went R + 9 or better

throw in the "tossups" (many of which are republican leans) & the odds are we add seats in the Senate

 

[GaryDog]

I don't think you understand what "at least" means.

Jesus what a dumb thread by a dumb poster.

No justification given for your opinion.

Then an ad hom on top of it.

How ludicrous.

He said "at least 2" and then in the next PHRASE within the SAME SENTENCE said "at least 3".

If you can't identify the retardese embedded in that, guess what?

 

[dcbl]

GaryDog

talking about

retardese

checks out