# Constitutional Amendment to fix the Supreme Court



## TroglocratsRdumb (Sep 22, 2020)

Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
How many Judges should there be?
Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
Do you think that the Dems would support it?


----------



## B. Kidd (Sep 22, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?



Ginsburg herself thought 9 was fine.

But she's dead.


----------



## eagle7-31 (Sep 22, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?


I would stay with 9, no most dems I doubt would support this. Setting a max age is okay making it 80.


----------



## jwoodie (Sep 22, 2020)

I have liked the idea of two justices appointed every presidential term, with the Chief Justice appointed on the fifth term.  20 years on the bench is more than enough.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Sep 22, 2020)

eagle7-31 said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...


Dems want to pack the Court with far left Judges who will enable their creeping erosion of our civil liberties.
Schumer would fight against it like hell.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Sep 22, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> I have liked the idea of two justices appointed every presidential term, with the Chief Justice appointed on the fifth term.  20 years on the bench is more than enough.


Yea, setting the maximum number of years could also work.
It would be a real game changer.


----------



## Dick Foster (Sep 22, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?


Good idea! Nothing wrong with the current number of nine. However while we're at it we should reign in the courts in general because it seems they are suffering under the delusion that the judiciary runs the world. For one thing it should take the SCOTUS to interfere with the administration not any pissant federal judge suffering delusions of grandeur


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?


Don't need one.

The USSC was created by an act of congress...All that's necessary to prevent packing is amend the existing legislation to prohibit it.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 22, 2020)

I don't think the number of justices is important.  But if they are going to change the number of justices, I think the sitting president and senate should make the decision to do it and how many to appoint, and the next president and senate make the choices of who to seat.  That would rein in any tendency to pack the court for immediate benefit and allow the American people to chose what party would choose the new justices.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...


That is the problem, every two years the Dems will try to pack the court, and an amendment would prevent it.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


How do you propose to amend the Constitution when it's not the enacting instrument that crated the court?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Not sure what you mean


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...


With out an amendment then a future Congress could just change the law. Which is how it is now.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Simply add an amendment that adds the maximum number of supreme's allowed pretty simply concept.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Actually the Constitution specifically mentions the Supreme Court.


----------



## jackflash (Sep 22, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?


I agree with a max age for BOTH Elected/appointed officals. I do not believe that elected/appointed officials should recieve any retirement benefits what so ever regardless of how long they remain in office. No, the supreme court is fine with the current number of justices it is allowd to have.


----------



## MarathonMike (Sep 22, 2020)

No one 80 or older should be serving in government in any capacity. The average American man is dead by 77 for a woman it's 81.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2020)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


The Constitution didn't create the Supreme Court...An amendment to nothing would have no power.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Sep 22, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?


There should be a jurist from each state nominated by the governor and appointed by the state legislature.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 22, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?


Yes.

Perhaps it's time.

After all, the Constitution speaks quantitatively about the No. of Chief Executives, the No. of Senators (per State), the No. of Representatives (proportionally), etc.

Given that the Constitution speaks to two of the three major branches ( Executive and Legislative ), perhaps we need the Judicial to have a cap, as well.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 22, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...


Hell, no...

Nine Justices, appointed by the President and with the consent of the Senate, has worked for us for 230 years or more.

And it'll work just fine for the NEXT 230, as well.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> The Constitution didn't create the Supreme Court...An amendment to nothing would have no power.


The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription


> To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;





> 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





> 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.





> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


----------



## JoeMoma (Sep 22, 2020)

I think we should replace the court with a magic 8 ball.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Sep 22, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...


50?


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution didn't create the Supreme Court...An amendment to nothing would have no power.
> ...


Yes....It says it's the power of congress to create the courts....The Constitution itself doesn't do so.

_*DUUUUUUUUH!*_


----------



## Dick Foster (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...


The Supreme Court was created by the founders as the the judicial and third branch of our government.

Got any idea what it takes to amend the constitution? If you don't try reading it because it tells you what it takes to amend it.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 22, 2020)

Kondor3 said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


It stopped working in 2016.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


The Supreme Court was created by an act of congress....The Constitution delegates to congress the power to create and regulate the courts.

No.....amendment....needed.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Yes....It says it's the power of congress to create the courts....The Constitution itself doesn't do so.


And that is why we would do an amendment.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Yes....It says it's the power of congress to create the courts....The Constitution itself doesn't do so.
> ...


You don't need to do an amendment...Congress has the power to do anything it wants with the courts....Up to and including abolishing them.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Sep 22, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> The Supreme Court was created by the founders as the the judicial and third branch of our government.


There have been like three judiciary act reorganizing the federal court system, because they have had some difficulties with how to do it.


----------



## GreenBean (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...


I do believe the The USSC / SCOTUS was created by the framers - it's part of the constitution and requires a constitutional amendment


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2020)

GreenBean said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


Read the fucking document for comprehension....It falls to CONGRESS to create and regulate the courts.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...



Yes, let's do that.  Just like Mussolini and Hitler did to complete the Fascist takeover.  See how well that worked out.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Sep 22, 2020)

We don't need an amendment to abolish the kabuki theatre and we sure don't need to add more govt and more justices.  The centralized power in this country IS destroying the country.  Im ready to secede from this circus.


----------



## Ame®icano (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...



Not so fast. The USSC was established by the US Constitution.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2020)

Ame®icano said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


No, it was established by an act of congress.









						Judiciary Act of 1789 | United States law
					

Judiciary Act of 1789, in full 1789 Judiciary Act,  act establishing the organization of the U.S. federal court system, which had been sketched only in general terms in the U.S. Constitution. The act established a three-part judiciary—made up of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## Ame®icano (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



And again, you're wrong. USSC is court established by the US Constitution. Read article III Section 1.

The constitution does permits Congress to decide how to organize USSC which they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2020)

Ame®icano said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...


It was not established at all...It says judicial power would be vested there, but is absolutely silent insofar as its creation and regulation are concerned.

_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.*_

If the Constitution created USSC, then why was the Judicial Act of 1789 even necessary?


----------



## XponentialChaos (Sep 22, 2020)

How about an amendment that the Senate can't indefinitely delay a vote on a Supreme Court nominee?


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 22, 2020)

Coyote said:


> ...It stopped working in 2016.


No, it still works; it just doesn't work at-present the way that the Dems want it to.

Perhaps Senator Harry Reid (D)(Nevada) should not have used the nuclear-option on the 60-vote majority for confirmation, after all?

In any event, the present configuration is just a blip on the scope of history - no need to change it merely for short-term partisan advantage.

I vote to keep it at nine.

And I'd support a Constitutional Amendment to lock that in.

( not that such an Amendment stands a snowball's-chance-in-Hades of ever coming to a vote, or sent to the States for ratification )


----------



## dblack (Sep 22, 2020)

I don't see how it would help much. We're already ignoring the shit our of the Constitution.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


I suggest you reread the document because you are flat OUT wrong. 





> *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.








						The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
					

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.




					www.archives.gov
				




The length of service is only restricted to good behavior. Not sure if one could construe that as allowing just a law to change it.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 22, 2020)

Kondor3 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > ...It stopped working in 2016.
> ...



Perhaps McConnel shouldn’t have blocked Obama’s judicial appointments, at an unprecedented level...

Perhaps McConnel shouldn’t have employed the nuclear option on SCOTUS.

Perhaps McConnel shouldn’t have denied a sitting president ris right to fill a SCOTUS vacancy...

There are a lot of perhaps’s that have led to this complete break down in norms and rules and brought us to this point.


----------



## hadit (Sep 22, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


You add something to the Constitution that wasn't there. In this case, you set the number of SC justices that can serve at the same time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 22, 2020)

The Constitution as quoted DOES in FACT establish a SUPREME Court. It leaves the Congress the make up and the construction of lower federal Courts only stipulating that all Judges shall serve indefinitely so long as they are in good standing. Claiming other wise is not only stupid by moronic it is written in black ink. That would be like saying the Constitution did not establish the President because it left it to the States and the electoral college to decide.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 23, 2020)

Coyote said:


> ...There are a lot of perhaps’s that have led to this complete break down in norms and rules and brought us to this point.


Agreed. There is great fault on BOTH sides of the aisle. But Harry Reid opened the flood-gates, didn't he?

In any event, to protect the American People against a 250-member SCOTUS in future, it's time to set a limit, and take such blackmail'ing options off the table for good.


----------



## GreenBean (Sep 23, 2020)

Oddball said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



*... Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution cannot be reversed or altered except by a constitutional amendment. Such decisions are virtually immune from presidential vetoes or congressional legislation.  How Congress Can Rein in the Courts.*


----------



## GreenBean (Sep 23, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Supreme Court was established by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution.   The 1789 article was a United States federal statute implementing its creation - It is ironic that " the Judiciary Act of 1789 was the first act of Congress to be partially invalidated by the Supreme Court." - [ Judiciary Act of 1789 - Wikipedia ]


----------



## Oddball (Sep 23, 2020)

GreenBean said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...


It was set forth, but didn't exist until the legislation which created and empowered it.

That the USSC has struck down aspects of the legislation that created it, just goes to show how despotic and out of control that they have become.


----------



## Dick Foster (Sep 23, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


You're being boneheaded and stupid about it. READ the constitution dummy! The supreme court was created by the founders with the constitution. Lower federal courts came later.


----------



## Dick Foster (Sep 23, 2020)

GreenBean said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...


Actually any law congress passes can be vetoed by the president but that veto can then be overtured but only by a two thirds majority vote of the congress. A simple majority just won't cut the mustard.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 23, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Dick Foster said:
> ...


Did the USSC exist before the the Judiciary Act of 1789, bonehead?


----------



## GreenBean (Sep 23, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Why did the chicken cross the road, and when she layed her egg was it on the other side ?  Better yet - what came first the chicken or the egg and what came first the authorization within the constitution or the act of 1789 ? The latter couldn't exist without the first so the chicken came first and you layed an egg ....


----------



## GreenBean (Sep 23, 2020)

Oddball said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


HAVE BECOME?! - That happened over a Century ago - but your point is well taken


----------



## Peace (Sep 23, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?


I believe the USSC Justices should only be allow to serve sixteen years...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?



There's not a chance in Hell that the Democrats would support any proposal to amend the Constitution _vis a vis_ the Supreme Court.

I would be in favor of specifying the number of Justices in an amendment.  Not really keen on an age limit, but I could get behind some sort of term limit requirement.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...



The Supreme Court has had 9 Justices since 1869.  It seems to work, so I say we stick to that number.

And I agree with you that every no-name jagoff in a black robe should not feel entitled to dictate federal government policy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...



Which doesn't solve the problem that another Congress can just come along and change that, which was the whole point.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Okay, first of all, the Constitution DID create the Supreme Court.  It was an act of Congressional legislation which specified the current number of Justices.  I have no idea where you got the notion that the Supreme Court was created by Congress.

Article 3, Section 1 of the US 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. _

Article 1, when listing the powers of the Presidency, also specifically mentions nominating and appointing, with advice and consent of the Senate, Justices of the Supreme Court.  The US Supreme Court was very clearly integral to the Constitution from the get-go.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



What Constitution are YOU reading?


----------



## Oddball (Sep 24, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


True....But, as was already pointed out, the USSC came along and changed the legislation that made them possible.

Nobody will exempt themselves from overreach...Writing new rules will just give them something else to ignore.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...



And a huge, unwieldy, political-by-design mess like that would accomplish what?


----------



## Oddball (Sep 24, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


Why did you ignore the next phrase in that first sentence?

_* ...and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. *_


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 24, 2020)

I see no indication from any leftardz to indicated that any of them have any respect or regard for the Constitution as it is. I doubt they give a rats ass about any further amendments.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Sorry, WHAT the fuck are you talking about, "came along and changed the legislation that made them possible"?

And how is it that you keep saying, "We just need Congress to pass a new law, and then Congress can just change that law, so what we need is for Congress to pass a law."  This is entirely incoherent.

The point of proposing an amendment to the Constitution which limits the number of Justices to 9 is that Constitutional amendments cannot just be changed and ignored the way Congressional legislation can.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 24, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


That's how the system is designed.

The congress is charged with ordaining and regulating the courts...The English in Article 3 is plain.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Because it doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, and is thus irrelevant.  Saying, "Congress created the Supreme Court, because the Constitution says it can create lesser courts" is nonsensical.

Why did YOU ignore the first phrase in that sentence?


----------



## Oddball (Sep 24, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Because it's the second sentence that shows who holds the power to ordain and regulate the courts: Congress.

They could go ahead and abolish the current USSC and start from scratch, according to a strict constructionist reading of Article 3.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Yes, the English IS plain . . . which doesn't seem to stop you from wildly misunderstanding it for some unknown agenda of your own.

It plainly says, "There will be a Supreme Court, and the whatever lesser courts Congress designates."  You, for whatever reason, are determined to read that as "Congress decides on the existence of ALL courts".  Maybe instead of trying to deal with issues of the Constitution and federal law, you should first deal with more fundamental matters of buying a dictionary and looking up the word "lesser".


----------



## Oddball (Sep 24, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


There's no agenda....It's clear that the responsibility of ordaining and regulating the courts lies with congress, via legislation.....There's no need, and questionable jurisdiction,  for any constitutional amendment to micromanage that responsibility.

If you want to further flesh out Article 3 and set forth a specific framework for all the courts into the Constitution, that's a different animal altogether....Good luck with that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



No, it's the second sentence which shows who holds the power to ordain and regulate INFERIOR courts.  That's why it specifically says the word "INFERIOR".

They could NOT "go ahead and abolish the USSC" for the precise reason that the Constitution states that there will be a Supreme Court, period.  Your reading is anything BUT a "strict constructionist reading"; it's an illiterate "I really like the way this sounds, so fuck the actual words" reading.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 24, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


"_*....AND*_ in such inferior courts...."

The English is plain as day.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Okay, fine, you have no agenda; you're just illiterate and badly in need of remedial reading courses.

It's clear that you think what you want it to say is what it says, regardless of the actual words and their meanings, and you've misinterpreted your functional illiteracy as clever originality.

And no, we do not need to "flesh out a framework for all courts" to limit the number of Justices on the Supreme Court, because your personal inability to define and understand the phrase "inferior courts" does not create in anyone else the obligation to treat your reading deficiencies as reality.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Again, your inability to perform basic reading comprehension does not redefine reality.  While you're having someone who CAN read look up the word "inferior" in the dictionary and explain it to you, have them look up the word "context" for you.  

Here is what the "plain as day" English ACTUALLY says when you read the whole sentence, rather than cherry-picking short phrases and trying to ignore what they refer to.

_The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts . . ._

Very clearly - "plain as day", one might even say - the phrase you've hung your stupidity on is discussing who has judicial power, not who is created and controlled by Congress.  Congress is not the subject of this sentence.

You should go back to every English teacher you have ever had and slap them for allowing you to make such an incredible fool of yourself in public, and then you should go join the Democrat Party, as they are the only group suitable for your level of arrogant ignorance.  

You are done being allowed to talk to me, until such time as you have proven educated enough to deserve the privilege of my time and attention.  Begone back to 2nd grade, buffoon!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Coyote said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



No, there's only one.

Perhaps the left should accept that they don't get to remake the system so that they win everything forever.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 24, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> I see no indication from any leftardz to indicated that any of them have any respect or regard for the Constitution as it is. I doubt they give a rats ass about any further amendments.



You're on the right track, but while the left doesn't have any respect for the Constitution, they DO recognize that it's an obstacle to their agenda and goals.  So they would give a rat's ass about stopping any amendment which would potentially make the Constitution MORE of an obstacle.


----------



## kaz (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Actually the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution:

Article III.   " 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. " 

I don't get your solution.  The number is set at 9 by Congress.   If Congress eliminates the filibuster, then a simple majority could change the number say from nine to 15.   If congress passes a law prohibiting that, then the way to change it would still be the same.

Only a Constitutional amendment would prevent congress from increasing the court from nine to say 15 without another Constitutional amendment


----------



## Oddball (Sep 24, 2020)

kaz said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


"If" is for children.....You're sounding like leftist making strawman "whatabout" anti-gun arguments.

In any event, isn't it already plain to you that the Constitution is already a dead letter?...Even if you're right, what would be the point if the USSC came along and struck it down?....After Marbury, anything is possible.


----------



## my2¢ (Sep 24, 2020)

XponentialChaos said:


> How about an amendment that the Senate can't indefinitely delay a vote on a Supreme Court nominee?



That is how I've been seeing things as well. I'd just tweak it to extend that to presidential appointment of federal judges at all levels. Give the Senate a reasonable amount of time to get off their duffs and do their jobs.  Then if they haven't finished their process in lets say 6 weeks, the appointment automatically goes through.


----------



## kaz (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



That really doesn't make a lot of sense.

- Your plan doesn't change anything.  Now, congress can change the number from 9 to higher.  After your law it would be exactly the same.

- Sure, if the SCOTUS ignores a constitutional amendment and you're right that history says they have no hesitation to do that, then congress still couldn't change it themselves without the SCOTUS.

Also, we are discussing this transactional issue.  Your assigning my transaction view to be my general view on the Constitution is a logical fallacy.  I've repeatedly said that our government is illegitimate and should be overthrown.  It routinely ignored the limits on it's power place on it by the people, the Constitution


----------



## Oddball (Sep 24, 2020)

kaz said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


*  I've repeatedly said that our government is illegitimate and should be overthrown.  It routinely ignored the limits on it's power place on it by the people, the Constitution.*

My view as well....Which would make the whole point of going through all the rigmarole, to create and try to pass a constitutional amendment, a monumental waste of time and effort.


----------



## kaz (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Well, we're screwed, we aren't going to fix it.  I agree with that.

I'm just hoping since I'm in my 50s I can die before it happens.  I'm willing to go to four corners at this point realizing eventually we'll lose anyway eventually


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 24, 2020)

Oddball said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...



The USSC was created by the Constitution. It was limited by an act of Congress to 9 Judges. Congress has the power to change that act anyway it wants - but it'd require a Presidential signature or a veto override by the Senate.


----------



## MadChemist (Sep 27, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > I have liked the idea of two justices appointed every presidential term, with the Chief Justice appointed on the fifth term.  20 years on the bench is more than enough.
> ...



I don't agree with this approach.

The SCOTUS is to be independent from the other branches of government.  

What you propose is that whatever group is in power will appoint justices which now starts to create to much of a connection to the group itself.  

The idea was to keep them disconnected.


----------



## jwoodie (Sep 27, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> What you propose is that whatever group is in power will appoint justices which now starts to create to much of a connection to the group itself.


Whatever group is in power already appoints justices.  Rotational 20 year term limits would prevent fate (or ailing justices themselves) from packing the court in one direction or another.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 28, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Like the way they're disconnected now?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Sep 28, 2020)

Poll: Majority of Voters Favor 'Keep Nine' Amendment for SCOTUS
					

A vast majority of registered voters favor the "Keep Nine" amendment, establishing the number of Supreme Court justices at nine.




					www.breitbart.com
				




*Last week, two congressmen, Denver Riggleman (R-VA) and Collin C. Peterson (D-MN) introduced a “Keep Nine” measure which would effectively set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine.*​​*“The independence and non-partisan nature of the Supreme Court of the United States is a core aspect of American government,” Riggleman said in a statement.*​​*“I am proud to lead this bipartisan legislation that keeps the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine and ensures partisan desires to ‘pack the court’ won’t result in a Court that has been undermined by politics,” he continued.*​​*Rep. Peterson added that it is “vital that we preserve” the independence of the Supreme Court.*​​*“I worry that partisan attempts to change the size of the court will set off a judicial arms race which will further divide our country. If one party succeeds in packing the Court, the next party to hold a majority may choose to do the same in retaliation,” he explained, adding that his amendment will “preserve the integrity of the Court and permanently protect Americans from these dangerous proposals.”....*​​*A survey, conducted by McLaughlin and Associates from Sept 23 – 27 among 1,000 registered, likely voters, found that 62 percent favor the amendment, as opposed to the 18 percent who do not. *​


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Sep 28, 2020)

The judiciary is not


Cecilie1200 said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > There should be a jurist from each state nominated by the governor and appointed by the state legislature.
> ...


It would more accurately separate the judiciary from the partisan control from the executive and legislative branches, and it would fulfill the checks and balances aspect that was lost with the 17th Amendment that initiated state-wide elections of the senators. And, I do not think it would be as difficult as you seem to believe it would be.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Sep 28, 2020)

Oddball said:


> * I've repeatedly said that our government is illegitimate and should be overthrown.*


Prove that you have made such a statement at least twice in the past. A simple search comes up with only this posting.

Please explain your vision of the restart of the government in a new discussion. Do not continue a derail, please.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 28, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > * I've repeatedly said that our government is illegitimate and should be overthrown.*
> ...


I was quoting and talking to my bud  kaz....As an ancap/agorist, I have no vision for restarting any gubmint at all.

Now buzz off.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 2, 2020)

Oddball said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



To regulate it. The constitution established SCOTUS, and allowed Congress to establish lower courts.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Oct 3, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> It would more accurately separate the judiciary from the partisan control from the executive and legislative branches, and it would fulfill the checks and balances aspect that was lost with the 17th Amendment that initiated state-wide elections of the senators. And, I do not think it would be as difficult as you seem to believe it would be.


And it would prevent the possibility of "packing the Court," as is being contested in contemporary politics.


----------



## MadChemist (Oct 17, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > What you propose is that whatever group is in power will appoint justices which now starts to create to much of a connection to the group itself.
> ...



I might be O.K. with a "term limit"  

However, we need to keep in mind that this branch is to be independent.

I used to advocate electing them.  

Now I am against that idea.

I almost think both sides get to nominate 10....we put the names in a hat and pick one.


----------



## Daryl Hunt (Oct 17, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...



This whole thing is a Rump and Party of the Rump scare and fear tactic.  The ones in charge in the Dems don't even bring it up and have all stated that they don't support it.  Yes, even Biden says he isn't in favor of it.  And Pelosi has also said she would not support it and if she won't support it it's a dead issue.

The Party of the Rump is in full panic mode right now and is looking for anything they can to keep the panic that they continuously do to keep happening.  What they don't understand is, we, the people, want a day without reading or hearing the news every day that scares the living hell out of us.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Oct 18, 2020)

MadChemist said:


> I might be O.K. with a "term limit" However, we need to keep in mind that this branch is to be independent.


Exactly. It was a much more difficult problem 200 years ago when there were not so many attorneys available.



MadChemist said:


> I used to advocate electing them.


There are way too many offices already for the average citizen to comprehend and evaluate candidates. There are courts that are elected, and it is a real shame, because there is no way average citizens know the candidates' work histories.



MadChemist said:


> I almost think both sides get to nominate 10....we put the names in a hat and pick one.


Not bad, but I think the judiciary organizations should promote their own - they know each other, and are going to keep it clean, because they won't be influenced by the partisan efforts in the legislatures. They may form their own factions and that may lead to reforms that the average citizens cannot comprehend, but ultimately lead to charters that cannot be interpreted in multiple ways.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 31, 2020)

eagle7-31 said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> ...




I'd go 60.......turn over the court more.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 31, 2020)

Oddball said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


The Constitution said nothing about banning alcohol but A perfectly legal Amendment was passed to do so.  It said nothing about the franchise for women either or most things the various amendments cover.  That’s why there is an amendment process, to correct mistakes and oversights by the founders.


----------



## Bulletbob (Oct 31, 2020)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Should we have a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the packing of the Supreme Court?
> The Amendment should set the maximum number of Supreme Court judges.
> How many Judges should there be?
> Maybe set the maximum age that a Judge can work at 75 or 80.
> Do you think that the Dems would support it?


No they will not. They want to pack the court and keep them there till death.
I think 9 is plenty


----------

