Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US Constitution on the number of judges of the Supreme Court

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The US Constitution on the number of judges of the Supreme Court

    The US Constitution nowhere says how many judges should be in the Supreme Court.
    It's up to Congress to decide, and there's nothing unconstitutional to propose to add judges.

    Those referring to Roosevelt are comparing apples with oranges, and claiming the Democrats are acting unconstitutionally because they want to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices is simply and plain wrong.
    The holy indignation about it is rather hyperbolic.

    And let's face it, the composition of Supreme Court is dependent on the president's choices, it's not an independent institution, even though it is claimed to be "independent of the political branches of government".

    Supreme Court Background

    Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "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." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.
    The Justices

    Over the years, various Acts of Congress have altered the number of seats on the Supreme Court, from a low of five to a high of 10. Shortly after the Civil War, the number of seats on the Court was fixed at nine. Today, there is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Like all federal judges, justices are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. They, typically, hold office for life. The salaries of the justices cannot be decreased during their term of office. These restrictions are meant to protect the independence of the judiciary from the political branches of government.
    "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return"

  • #2
    Looks to me that the US is doing just fine with nine...
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #3
      I never said adding justices was unconstitutional. My claim in another thread is that court packing is a short term means to gain political advantage, and nothing more. Right now, Democrats-- and by extension the Progressive Left-- are upset that Trump is quickly undoing much of what Obama (a Progressive Leftist) did in office and is also moving government to the Right of where it has been.
      They are, in essence, upset they can't get their way. In good part this is because the Left operates on the thinking What's ours is ours. What's yours is negotiable. That is, the only direction the country's politics and society in general can move is to the Left. Any other outcome is to be vigorously, if not violently, opposed.
      Look at Venezuela today. A Leftist government has essentially abolished (the rewrote it) the constitution making only the Leftist government in power the one the country can have. Maduro and his political cronies are installing themselves for life while imprisoning or exiling any opposition. Elections are rigged to make a show of democratic fairness, at least in public, while the outcome is predetermined and will keep the Left in power. Only Leftist policies and laws are passed. Everything else is rejected even as society collapses and people starve.
      It would be no different in the US if the Left truly got control of the reigns of power. Even during the Obama administration you could see this to an extent. Government policies didn't take for a second into consideration the harm they might do to the economy but rather only considered whether they met a litmus test of acceptability to the Left. Thus you got the war on coal. The disastrous push for all things "green." Didn't matter how many billions were spent. Didn't matter how cost ineffective policies were. All that mattered was things were moving in the correct direction politically, and that direction was Left.
      But, with Trump and the Republicans in office there is nothing either can do that the Progressive Left-- and by extension MSM and Democrats-- will find acceptable. Trump and the Republicans aren't moving things to the Left and that is an unforgivable sin for which they must be continuously and relentlessly attacked and vilified for.

      Comment


      • #4
        The OP on another thread was:

        Reaching way back to their bag of shenanigans the democrats are now threatening to pack the US Supreme Court, as FDR leaned over 80 years ago , it is unconstitutional but history be damned full speed ahead.
        Unfortunately that thread developed into childish bickering, whereas the OP was definitely easily proven wrong.
        "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Rutger View Post
          The OP on another thread was:



          Unfortunately that thread developed into childish bickering, whereas the OP was definitely easily proven wrong.
          How so? FDR tried to load the US Supreme Court, If I remember correctly FDR was a Dem. As for the childish bickering , you got that right. Funny thing as I agree with Massena on this, we are doing just fine with nine, In fact the Supreme Court has dealt Trump many defeats.
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • #6
            Fine with nine, for me as well!
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
              Fine with nine, for me as well!
              It isn't the nine, Trung...it's the one. You of all people know that as well as I do.

              Might as well save a ton of money and reduce the Court to three - one conservative, one liberal and one who makes all of the decisions the same way it now take nine to do.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Absolute nonsense.
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #9
                  20% of all votings are 5-4, 45 % of all votings are 9-0 .
                  "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And that illustrates or proves what?

                    Further, what is your source?
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X