The Unmaking Of The Supreme Court

skews13

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,010
Reaction score
1,552
Points
360
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.



" Could find itself with rather little to do "

This is a brilliant strategy put forward by Jennifer Rubin, one that I had not considered. The Democrats wouldn't have to expand the court at all. Just enshrine issues like abortion into law, and then strip the court of it's jurisdiction concerning the Constitutionality of Federal Statutes.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,154
Reaction score
9,854
Points
980
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.



" Could find itself with rather little to do "

This is a brilliant strategy put forward by Jennifer Rubin, one that I had not considered. The Democrats wouldn't have to expand the court at all. Just enshrine issues like abortion into law, and then strip the court of it's jurisdiction concerning the Constitutionality of Federal Statutes.
And you cheered it along........oooops
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,454
Points
2,165
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,154
Reaction score
9,854
Points
980
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Yes first thing Trump should do is pack the Court to a 10-3 advantage or more.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,454
Points
2,165
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Yes first thing Trump should do is pack the Court to a 10-3 advantage or more.
He needs both Senate and House. :eusa_doh:
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,154
Reaction score
9,854
Points
980
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Yes first thing Trump should do is pack the Court to a 10-3 advantage or more.
He needs both Senate and House. :eusa_doh:
Just phone and pen it ...no big deal
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,030
Reaction score
15,481
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.



" Could find itself with rather little to do "

This is a brilliant strategy put forward by Jennifer Rubin, one that I had not considered. The Democrats wouldn't have to expand the court at all. Just enshrine issues like abortion into law, and then strip the court of it's jurisdiction concerning the Constitutionality of Federal Statutes.
Suddenly you people are Federalists. Astonishing
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,030
Reaction score
15,481
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
The number of seats will be increased by exactly zero
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
128,533
Reaction score
21,990
Points
2,180
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.



" Could find itself with rather little to do "

This is a brilliant strategy put forward by Jennifer Rubin, one that I had not considered. The Democrats wouldn't have to expand the court at all. Just enshrine issues like abortion into law, and then strip the court of it's jurisdiction concerning the Constitutionality of Federal Statutes.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
115,563
Reaction score
28,325
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.”

The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme.

The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).

A highly partisan Supreme Court widely viewed as politically driven could find itself with rather little to do.



" Could find itself with rather little to do "

This is a brilliant strategy put forward by Jennifer Rubin, one that I had not considered. The Democrats wouldn't have to expand the court at all. Just enshrine issues like abortion into law, and then strip the court of it's jurisdiction concerning the Constitutionality of Federal Statutes.
The SCOTUS only counts when it's run by "Progressives" (Communists)

LOL

It's like Gerrymandering, it's only cool when "Progressives" (Communists) do it
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
115,563
Reaction score
28,325
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
So Trump can appoint 5 new members today?
 
OP
skews13

skews13

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,010
Reaction score
1,552
Points
360
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
And therein lies your problem. This isn't about winning and losing. The court is supposed to be nonpartisan.

Your statement proves the authors point. You have politicized the court, thus taking away it's credibility.

The very reason the Founders gave Congress the power to regulate the court.

Trump and McConnell have destroyed any credibility they have, and because Trump does not have support of the majority of America, he and McConnell have violated the most fundamental of all American values, as written in the Declaration of Independence:

" Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed "

McConnell violated that oath by denying Merrick Garland a hearing, as an appointee from the man who was given that consent by the voters. Twice elected popularly with over 50% of the vote.

Trump was not popularly elected, and has never had the consent of the majority his entire first term.

Rubin was right in the article that because of these facts, the Democrats have, and will have the consent of the governed to dissolve the tyranny of the minority, by any means necessary, all of which the Constitution gives them the unambiguous power to do so.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,454
Points
2,165
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Yes first thing Trump should do is pack the Court to a 10-3 advantage or more.
He needs both Senate and House. :eusa_doh:
Just phone and pen it ...no big deal
Nope.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,454
Points
2,165
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
The number of seats will be increased by exactly zero
Yeah, they will, and you will not be happy about it.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,814
Reaction score
9,696
Points
2,030
Trump will lower it to one..
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,814
Reaction score
9,696
Points
2,030
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
And therein lies your problem. This isn't about winning and losing. The court is supposed to be nonpartisan.

Your statement proves the authors point. You have politicized the court, thus taking away it's credibility.

The very reason the Founders gave Congress the power to regulate the court.

Trump and McConnell have destroyed any credibility they have, and because Trump does not have support of the majority of America, he and McConnell have violated the most fundamental of all American values, as written in the Declaration of Independence:

" Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed "

McConnell violated that oath by denying Merrick Garland a hearing, as an appointee from the man who was given that consent by the voters. Twice elected popularly with over 50% of the vote.

Trump was not popularly elected, and has never had the consent of the majority his entire first term.

Rubin was right in the article that because of these facts, the Democrats have, and will have the consent of the governed to dissolve the tyranny of the minority, by any means necessary, all of which the Constitution gives them the unambiguous power to do so.
The court has been non partisan, see abortion, gay marriage, Obama care, dreamers the left wants to make it partisan and making a big deal about nothing.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,154
Reaction score
9,854
Points
980
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Yes first thing Trump should do is pack the Court to a 10-3 advantage or more.
He needs both Senate and House. :eusa_doh:
Just phone and pen it ...no big deal
Nope.
Oh yeah ........Trump busting loose and running wild.......
 

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
21,190
Reaction score
15,153
Points
2,445
Location
The Southwestern Desert
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
I'm sure the Democrats will make every attempt to do that. Look at the mockery they made of the Impeachment process.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
25,439
Reaction score
4,037
Points
280
We win, you lose. And by we I mean America. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 Conservative for at least 10 years, giving America a glimmer of hope to hold back the rising tide of insanity.
The number of seats will be increased by four but probably six seats, giving the Liberals a 9-6 majority for a long time.
Making the SC increasingly irrelevant, as America adjusts to ignoring democrat rule.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top