No, there isn't anything in the constitution about the size.
(I'm not a constitutional lawyer, have never played one on tv but have seen quite a few seasons of law and order)
Supreme Court at it again, this time with the EPA
- Thread starter Frankfooter
- Start date
(I'm not a constitutional lawyer, have never played one on tv but have seen quite a few seasons of law and order)
Lol!!! All of a sudden the lefties don't think that "democracy " is so great. Both, the Dobbs and the EPA decisions, cannot be seen as anything less than the defence of the voters and their right to decide their destiny through the legislative process.
If it was democratic then 3 presidents who lost the popular vote wouldn't have jammed the court with right wing activists.
He's got a whole book about it.
America: The Farewell Tour
Chris Hedges’s profound and unsettling examination of America in crisis is “an exceedingly…provocative book, certain to arouse controversy, but off...
www.simonandschuster.com
That's great, but can you summarize what he concludes will happen in the United States?He's got a whole book about it.
America: The Farewell Tour
Chris Hedges’s profound and unsettling examination of America in crisis is “an exceedingly…provocative book, certain to arouse controversy, but off...
I don't want to spend months reading a book.
It's been decaying since the corporate state has made the citizenry impotent, and total direct fascism is likely. Right now we're still in "inverted totalitarianism."
It takes you months to read a book lol?
Not at all.
There needs to be a Supreme Court.
That's basically it.
- Article iii of the Constitution
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.
(The fact there is a chief justice is also in the Constitution, but it isn't specified by the article that creates the courts, it is just mentioned the Chief Justice is supposed to preside over a Presidential impeachment trial.)
Can be 1 guy.
It has been a few different sizes over the years because the judges had to actually ride circuit and rule on things in their circuits back in the day. After some messing about, they made it one justice per circuit.
So it was 6 at the beginning of the 1800s, then 7 pretty soon after to deal with the growth of the country.
It became 9 (5 for quorum) in the 1830s after because when they added two more circuits after getting up to 26 states.
It became 10 (6 for quorum) in the middle of the civil war because they added a circuit to deal with the new Western states on the Pacific Coast (California and Oregon).
Then after the civil war they decided to bring it down to 7 again and re-organize the circuits so the ex-Confederate states had less power in the Court (basically no one would fill any vacancies until it got back down to seven - the move specifically to seven was because the Chief Justice wanted a higher salary and knew it would be easier if they didn't ask for more money but just divided the budget among fewer people.)
It got down to 9 and they passed a new law a few years later to keep it at 9 because they still had 9 circuits and I guess they thought that was more important than the guy who wanted a bigger salary.
It has stayed 9 ever since. (They passed a law at some point turning it from actual circuits the justices had to preside over to the court of appeals circuits it has now.)
There are 13 circuits now (Circuits 1-11, the circuit of DC and the Federal Circuit) so if you wanted to be historical and honour the Founders and all of that crap you would make it 13 justices.
But as you can see, Congress was happy to mess around with the size quite a bit right up until the post-Civil war era.
There you go.
Hammer through a bill saying the court is now 1 judge and the latest appointment only.
If only they could....
You need to pass the drugs you are taking to the rest of the class.
No way to do that easily since Federal judges serve for life.
You *could* try to make it that all the other justices had to be moved to some kind of "reserve" status or something, but not even sure about that.
That's why the last time they tried to reduce it they just made it "no one can name replacements for vacancies".
ROTFLMFAO!! I told you, you're a mindless ideologue. Now you hate democracy, too.
Biden plays too nicely with the other kids to ever do anything drastic.
Same with Pelosi.
But you could do things like this, make life miserable for the judges.
SCOTUS marshal asks Maryland officials to enforce anti-picketing laws outside justices' homes
“For weeks on end, large groups of protesters chanting slogans, using bullhorns, and banging drums have picketed justices’ homes in Maryland,” one letter reads.
www.politico.com
Last edited:
No.
I'm a mindful ideologue. It takes a lot more effort and you should try it some time.
Given who you're siding with, claiming to love democracy is a bad play moving forward.
They are going to stop even pretending they think democracy is a good thing in not too long.
To be fair, as long as you show yourself to be a good little follower like you are, you won't be punished for having said you like democracy in the past.
Consistency isn't important, just submission.
How is "letting people picket" something drastic?Biden plays too nicely with the other kids to ever do anything drastic.
Same with Pelosi.
But you could do things like this, make life miserable for the judges.
SCOTUS marshal asks Maryland officials to enforce anti-picketing laws outside justices' homes
“For weeks on end, large groups of protesters chanting slogans, using bullhorns, and banging drums have picketed justices’ homes in Maryland,” one letter reads.
They have to hold their office during good behaviour. And the Supreme Court is distinct from whatever inferior courts.
Yeah, the easiest thing is to fuck with the numbers. Like appointing all the Circuit Appeal Court judges "Associate Justices of the USSC". Or something like that. And then you'd have to figure out how to sub in those judges for the current idiots.
Its the police and official response.
if the protesters get the BLM response the cops antagonize them until someone does something stupid, uses that as justification and beats the crowd and arrests them.
If the protests get the Timbit Taliban treatment the cops bring them sandwiches and drinks, let them set up camp and do whatever they do.
Right now its a medium response, the cops are keeping them somewhat away.
It could go either way.
Though your system has been pretty well screwed if this even looks like a reasonable option.
Set it to one.
But you can't let seniority rule, or the youngest. You'd have to say its the latest appointment.
Keep the other judges as advisers, backups, coffee fetchers....
Otherwise you have to add a minimum of 4, but likely 5 or 6.
