It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Maybe 11 Supreme court Justices in our future ?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Since blocking the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh did not work the Dems want to go for impeachment if they get the votes/seats for the midterm. The newest plan, since Justice's serve such a long time is to increase the number of justices on the supreme court from 9 to enough to dilute any republican nominee seated.. It is true that there used to be 5 then 7 and as of today and the last 100 years there are 9.. I suppose they will try to seat 11 if they can muster the power ?
youtu.be... I will be very surprised if the republicans do not lose the house (historically that is the way it works) but maintain the Senate by a small margin.. This midterm really is an important time in America's history regardless of which side of the political fence you find yourself.

edit on 727thk18 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Don't forget a 10 year limit too!



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Why the hell not!

When you don't get your way, just change the rules until it's finally 'your way'.

Then sometime in the future when the SCOTUS gets stacked against liberals in overwhelming fasion, we can start the talks of abolishing the SCOTUS completely!

Yay Sociali...I mean Democrats!



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I think there’s two things that the Democrats haven’t considered.

Number one is a four letter word to them VETO!

The second one is that in the event a Democratic Congress overrides the veto or the presidency changes hands .

There would be legal action. Guess who it would end up in front of ?

SCOTUS would be ruling on a constitutional issue and would have no conflict of interest.

This is just another red herring to dangle in front of their angry and foaming base. Just like their cries for impeachment which will never happen .

The Democrats are just building their base up knowing they will get angrier ( if that’s possible ) when they are let down .
edit on 10-10-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The Democrats already tried this in the 30s when they weren't getting their way in the court.

Luckily some level headed Dems stopped it from happening. That was a time when politicians put country ahead of party; I wouldn't expect that to happen now.


en.m.wikipedia.org...


In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping reelection victory. In the months following, Roosevelt proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age seventy and failed to retire.[6] The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937, and was the subject of Roosevelt's 9th Fireside chat of March 9, 1937.[7][8]Three weeks after the radio address the Supreme Court published an opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[9] The 5–4 ruling was the result of the apparently sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who joined with the wing of the bench supportive to the New Deal legislation. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his support here was seen as a result of the political pressure the president was exerting on the court. Some interpreted his reversal as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independenceby alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. This reversal came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine"; however, recent legal-historical scholarship has called that narrative into question[10] as Roberts's decision and vote in the Parrish case predated both the public announcement and introduction of the 1937 bill.[11]

Roosevelt's legislative initiative ultimately failed. The bill was held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst who delayed hearings in the Judiciary Committee saying, "No haste, no hurry, no waste, no worry—that is the motto of this committee."[12] As a result of his delaying efforts, the bill was held in committee for 165 days, and opponents of the bill credited Ashurst as instrumental in its defeat.[5] The bill was further undermined by the untimely death of its chief advocate in the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority LeaderJoseph T. Robinson. Contemporary observers broadly viewed Roosevelt's initiative as political maneuvering. Its failure exposed the limits of Roosevelt's abilities to push forward legislation through direct public appeal. Public perception of his efforts here was in stark contrast to the reception of his legislative efforts during his first term.[13][14] Roosevelt ultimately prevailed in establishing a majority on the court friendly to his New Deal legislation, though some scholars view Roosevelt's victory as pyrrhic.[14]



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
There would be legal action. Guess who it would end up in front of ?

SCOTUS would be ruling on a constitutional issue and would have no conflict of interest.


Legal action on what? The setting of the number of Justices?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A change to an already set statute. (Law) Yep anybody can challenge that .
edit on 10-10-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Let's make the change right now and President Trump can seat a couple more justices! :



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
A change to an already set statute. (Law) Yep anybody can challenge that .


How do you challenge the Constitution in court?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You can challenge a federal law on a constitutional basis.Dude they just did it in May .

But just to be clear in our discussion before we continue are you saying that federal law cannot be struck down by the Supreme Court ?
edit on 10-10-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I thought congress set the number of supreme court judges.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Fallingdown
A change to an already set statute. (Law) Yep anybody can challenge that .


How do you challenge the Constitution in court?




Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Holding: School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.




In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities.





Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987)
Holding: Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school.





Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated.


It makes one wonder how school prayer violates the first admendment, when students do not have a First Admendment right.


That is one way to challenge the constitution.




www.uscourts.gov...



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
You can challenge a federal law on a constitutional or other basis.Dude they just did it in May .


The setting of the numbers of Justices and their terms is a provision given to Congress and has been exercised numerous times over the country's history. How do you challenge something with solid legal precedent?





edit on 10-10-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I don't see the dems doing that. They appear to have abandoned constitutional government in favor of mob rule by death threats and street riots.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Let's make the change right now and President Trump can seat a couple more justices! :


Agreed, like another 10



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein


None of those are a challenge TO the Constitution, they are a challenge to the legality of statutes passed that violate the Constitution.

Pay attention.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
I thought congress set the number of supreme court judges.


They do, which is the point I'm making.



edit on 10-10-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Fallingdown
You can challenge a federal law on a constitutional or other basis.Dude they just did it in May .


The setting of the numbers of Justices and their terms is a provision given to Congress and has been exercised numerous times over the country's history. How do you challenge something with solid legal precedent?






^^^^^Your argument is actually my argument .

Even though you’re using the word precedent incorrectly . The previous number of judges is what the supreme court could rule on versus constitutionality of the change in law increasing the number of judges.

But in the event the Supreme Court ruled against that law. It could always go back to Congress and they could rewrite it . Which would more than likely make it back to the supreme court.


Edit:

By the way I took it for granite that everyone knew the first part of your reply . My bad .
edit on 10-10-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

So when it's 7 conservatives vs 4 liberals will we just play double or nothing and bring the number up to 13 chosen by State Electoral size?

What sore losers.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

The number of justices isn't set in the Constitution but under Article III, Section 1, Congress is given authority to establish courts (and set things like numbers of judges in each):

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Off the top of my head the only other guidance the Constitution gives on the Supreme Court is in Article III, Section 2:

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

In addition to the Article III courts (SCOTUS, appeals, district courts, FISC), there are the Article I courts (bankruptcy, tax, various military-related, etc) with the authority there under Article I, Section 8, and Article IV (territorial courts). Congress sets the number of judges.

Now, the Supreme Court has in fact ruled in the past on statutes governing courts but there's no constitutional basis for limiting the power of Congress to select the number of SCOTUS justices — it's literally their job.

Anyway, the number of SCOTUS justices has been changed a number of times:

1801 - set to 5
1807 - increased to 7
1837 - increased to 9
1863 - increased to 10

The something really interesting happened. In 1866, leading up to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868), Congress sought to prevent Johnson from naming any SCOTUS justices so they passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 which lowered the number back to 7 — which meant that any justices leaving the court (retirement or death), down to 7, would not be replaced.

1869 - decreased to 9 by the Judiciary Act of 1869 where it has remained.

Congress could set the number to 11 and there's nothing anyone could do about it.

edit on 2018-10-10 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join