I can see all of that and recognize that experience, wisdom, etc. is invaluable in the most important legal matters. It's also hard for me to square that with the political hand grenade that is created by an aging and stubborn justice. It's an unpopular sentiment among some liberal constituencies, but RBG was nothing but selfish to hang on as long as she did. It is absurd that the health of a single cancer-surviving octogenarian became such a deciding factor in policy-making. Some notion of staggered term limits seems like a compromise worth exploring to maintain the integrity of the court and defuse its current all-or-nothing politics.
Exactly. Not only that, Scalia's sudden unexpected death shouldn't have created a massive political shockwave. It's a terrible idea to let the winds of fate be such a powerful influence on arguably the most important institution in our government.
BREAKING NEWS: Nancy Pelosi and senior Dems kill their own parties bid to pack the Supreme Court with four more liberal judges by saying they WON'T support House bill https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...T-support-partys-bill-pack-Supreme-Court.html
Sounds like they just don't like the tactics of Nadler's bill. They want to slow-roll it with Biden's commission and would probably bring another bill later if the atmosphere is more favorable.
Or... look at other priorities, such as DC and PR statehood. And, how much pushback they get from republicans. And USSC decisions. Its interesting that the party that tried to overturn the last election is now so worried about constitutionality and hyperpartisanship. Also interesting to note that the number of supreme court seats has changed over history.
Adding more USSC Justices is a long shot given that not even all the Democrats support it. I think Pelosi and other senior Democrats feel that with the infrastructure bill, HR-1 and several other tough bills they need Democrats to hold together. Expanding the court likely just isn't that big of a priority and one that they fear could fracture the Democrats. As I said earlier I think Biden having a commission was lip service to the Progressives but given what he has previously said I don't think he's really behind the issue.
https://babylonbee.com/news/losing-baseball-team-proposes-adding-4-players-to-their-side-mid-game Just enjoy the humor. Dont take it too serious.
May surprise jr to learn the United States Constitution didn't specify a number of Supreme Court Justices. And that the number of Justices rose throughout history, from six, to seven, to nine and at one point, ten. 2. There haven’t always been nine justices on the court. The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan. https://www.history.com/news/7-thin...7, Congress increased the,1863, it rose to 10.
They forgot to include that over 100 years ago, there were a different number of outfielders and that the rules have been changed several times (again, over 100 years ago).
Strategically stupid timing to put a bill like this on the house floor. Right now the entire focus should be on moving Manchin and Sinema on filibuster reform to pass the Biden Jobs plan and HR1 or the John Lewis voting rights act. Nothing that requires their vote is getting done unless they pass something like this first that’ll have broad support among voters. If they went here first then they are strategically stupid because it’ll send Manchin back in his corner and he won’t allow Jack squat. We have more important issues to tackle first like saving the right to vote.
webinar on Tuesday: Harvard FedSoc chapter to host debate on court packing by Kalvis Golde Share On Tuesday, April 20, at 12 p.m. EDT, the Harvard Law School chapter of the Federalist Society will host a debate, entitled “Breaking the Court or Saving Democracy? A Debate on Court Packing,” between two scholars on the merits of proposals to add seats to the Supreme Court. Professor Michael Klarman of Harvard Law will advocate in favor of court packing, and Dan McLaughlin of the National Review will advocate against. Professor Theodore Rave of the University of Houston Law Center will moderate. Click here to register. The post Harvard FedSoc chapter to host debate on court packing appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
