What is so wrong with letting the Supreme Court shrink?

[Deleted member 53821]

After observing the controversy about replacing Scalia I wonder if it would be better just to let the supreme court shrink by one seat. There isn't anything in the constitution that says we have to have a min number of justices. In fact, why not let the others die off as they would do so naturally and let the supreme court shrink to five or six justices?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't drive for at least 4 hours and a nap.

 

[g5000]

After observing the controversy about replacing Scalia I wonder if it would be better just to let the supreme court shrink by one seat. There isn't anything in the constitution that says we have to have a min number of justices. In fact, why not let the others die off as they would do so naturally and let the supreme court shrink to five or six justices?

FDR observed there was no limit to the size of the Supreme Court in the Constitution and tried to pack it with more than 9 justices so the Court would approve his New Deal schemes. He was going to increase it to 15 judges.

Be very careful what benchmarks you set. Sooner or later, they will always come back to bite you in the face.

Not only that, an even number of Justices greatly increases the odds of tied decisions, which means lower court decisions stand.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Don't drive for at least 4 hours and a nap.

Obviously you thought the idea was dumb. Can you explain why? Are you capable of explaining why or are you to stupid to come up with justifications for your opinions. I suspect the latter.

 

[g5000]

Roosevelt announces “court-packing” plan - Feb 05, 1937 - HISTORY.com

 

[g5000]

Why nine, instead of six?

We used to have six. A long time ago. We've had nine for about half the age of our country.

Ask yourself something. A President occupies the office for eight years, usually. Would you want him to be able to replace 2 out of 6 Justices, or 2 out of 9?

How about 3 out of 6, instead of 3 out of 9?

Imagine the wild fluctuations of jurisprudence that would occur. Imagine the deep wounding to stare decisis.

As a firm devotee of precedence, I would prefer we increase the number of Associate Justices, if we are going to make any changes at all.

 

[bendog]

Why nine, instead of six?

We used to have six. A long time ago. We've had nine for about half the age of our country.

Ask yourself something. A President occupies the office for eight years, usually. Would you want him to be able to replace 2 out of 6 Justices, or 2 out of 9?

You/d think the Founders would have set some sort of limit. (-:

 

[Kosh]

After observing the controversy about replacing Scalia I wonder if it would be better just to let the supreme court shrink by one seat. There isn't anything in the constitution that says we have to have a min number of justices. In fact, why not let the others die off as they would do so naturally and let the supreme court shrink to five or six justices?

I am ok with the court as it is, could be worse we could have followed the war criminal FDR and expanded the court..

 

[g5000]

Why nine, instead of six?

We used to have six. A long time ago. We've had nine for about half the age of our country.

Ask yourself something. A President occupies the office for eight years, usually. Would you want him to be able to replace 2 out of 6 Justices, or 2 out of 9?

You/d think the Founders would have set some sort of limit. (-:

Well, they wanted those pesky checks and balances, so they left it to Congress to decide how many.

The Senate advises and consents to a nominee, but the full Congress decides how many there will be.

 

[KingOfCars]

Nothing at all wrong with it