Democrats say PACKING the Supreme Court Would Make America Better.

a reply to: carewemust

So will they add more when there are 21 Republican judges? Leave it alone, it fluctuates.
Works both ways..

fdr tried it it did not go well www.history.com...

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal. During the previous two years, the high court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government. Flushed with his landslide reelection in 1936, President Roosevelt issued a proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70. If a justice refused to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called “court-packing” plan.

www.smithsonianmag.com... i dont see it being popular and could end up one of those genie coming out of the bottle situations that grows into something no one wants

a reply to: carewemust

What government body would enact these changes to the Supreme Court? Or, would Americans vote on it?

constitutionus.com...

Article III, Section 1:

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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Congress decides how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court. Changing the number of Justices would be a simple bill, requiring 50%+1 votes on the House and 51 votes in the Senate. Cloture rules in the Senate, as they are now, would mean 60 votes were required to actually hold a vote, however. Also, it would have to be signed by the President, or a 2/3 supermajority in both houses could override his veto. Just like any law.

Personally, I think a Constitutional amendment is in order here, establishing the number of Justices once and for all. This crap was tried way back in 1866, and rectified back to 9 in 1869. An amendment would stop it in its tracks once and for all.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: projectvxn

What Exactly is this " extra-constitutional " Means that you Speak ? They Do Not Exist Legally , you Know that , Right ?

It means working outside of the constitution in order to seize power.

a reply to: carewemust

It's crazy they only come up with these ideas when they don't own the court.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Little miss muffet,
She sat on a tuffet,
Eating of curds and whey,
There came a Spider,
Who sat down beside her,
He poked her on the shoulder,
And then he told her,
You might be a Natzi,
For speaking that way.

a reply to: projectvxn

" It means working outside of the constitution in order to seize power. "


In other Words , Anarchy . No , WE ARE Ready for that .............

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Remember what happened last time the Dems thought it was smart to change the status quo? That’s why it now only takes 51 votes in the Senate to confirm.

I believe one each Harry Reid (D) thought that was a good idea and pushed it through...

You're right! In 2013 Senate leader Harry Reid changed Senate rules, and it came back to bite Democrats with Neil Gorsuch, as it will again with Judge Kavanaugh.

Harry must be accidently tripping and bumping his head even more now.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas


America was more sensible when FDR was President. Dims are mentally unstable now, and might try it again.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank-you for taking the time to explain HOW this would be accomplished. I now realize just how unlikely it is that we'll see the Supreme Court tampered with. At least for the next few years.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: carewemust

It's crazy they only come up with these ideas when they don't own the court.

Next might be Supreme Court term limits...that only apply to justices appointed by Republicans.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: projectvxn

" It means working outside of the constitution in order to seize power. "


In other Words , Anarchy . No , WE ARE Ready for that .............

Senator Dick Durbin says that Trump has already created a Constitutional Crisis, that can only be reversed with drastic measures.

How about not letting the Republican nor Democrat Party's pack / fill / stack / skew the seats?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How about not letting the Republican nor Democrat Party's pack / fill / stack / skew the seats?

I think that would require the amendment to the Consitution, that was alluded to by TheRedNeck.

a reply to: Bigburgh

Ok Tim.. say what you mean.

Reign it in, when the masses steer to far to the left or to right. Reign it in... steer it back to the middle.

But hey! Why divide more..


Keep it simple stupid's.

Edit: you will never please everyone every time. Keep it centered.

Yeah, since the liberals are going to lose control of the Supreme court to the conservatives, they want to change it so they will get control sooner than may be twenty years. This is an illegal ploy to make the Supreme Court disfunctional. They have enough judges already. Conservative is actually better, conservatives actually try to preserve the law of the land, liberals want to change the law to fit their needs and desires of Liberals. Too much change too fast only disrupts society, it is evident it is happening in the last seven years, civil unrest is becoming a thing of reality, a small amount of people, maybe one million people, is disrupting our society.

The Constitution states that the President nominates Justices which are then confirmed by the Senate.

All it takes is control of the White House and the Senate.

FDR threatened to do it.

Congress can establish inferior Courts and they can Impeach a Justice but legislation is not needed to pack the Court.

It would be a serious mistake to do this.

EDIT: I am mistaken.

a reply to: rickymouse

Liberals probably feel the opposite.