Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually the number has fluctuated. but it was originally based on the supreme court being the overseers of the circuit courts. Which was fine when there were 9 justices and 9 circuits. But now there are 13 circuits, and only 9 justices to cover them. There is no argument against having a justice for each circuit as existed from the start of the constitution.I thought we were honoring the Constitution?
Where does it say anything about 9 Justices?
funny how this is only a problem now when democrats lost their ability to murder children on demand,,Actually the number has fluctuated. but it was originally based on the supreme court being the overseers of the circuit courts. Which was fine when there were 9 justices and 9 circuits. But now there are 13 circuits, and only 9 justices to cover them. There is no argument against having a justice for each circuit as existed from the start of the constitution.
Circuit riding was one of the responsibilities of U.S. Supreme Court justices during the Marshall Court (1801–1835). Under the Judiciary Act of 1801, the United States federal judicial districts were divided into six (and later seven) United States circuit courts—one for each justice.
You mean like telling senators during your confirmation hearings that Roe is settled law?Even if Dems had won those cases they would have lied anyway and claimed the GOP was about to overturn RvW and legalize machine guns this fall. Dems LIE there's no LIE Dems won't tell.
Do you think court packing would not be headline news?
Actually republicans have refused to expand the court, or even to staff the court, if it gave the democrats a chance to nominate justices.funny how this is only a problem now when democrats lost their ability to murder children on demand,,
This Court has more Constitutionalist Justices than ever before in my life time.This court has an agenda
They are looking to have more influence than any branch of Government
Precedence has no bearing
Consistency in their decisions is meaningless
I dont recall that ever happening,, when did the dems suggest this or try and do it??Actually republicans have refused to expand the court, or even to staff the court, if it gave the democrats a chance to nominate justices.
And that they believed in Stare Decicis.You mean like telling senators during your confirmation hearings that Roe is settled law?
Democrats are butt hurt with 9 Justices, what's your point?Who would care except for butt hurt Republicans?
It would be news for a day
Really? I can name three of them that violated their oath by lying to congress. Telling the senate that roe v wade was settled law.This Court has more Constitutionalist Justices than ever before in my life time.
That's not a bad thing. IMO
it was settled,, then it wasnt,,Really? I can name three of them that violated their oath by lying to congress. Telling the senate that roe v wade was settled law.
Your post made sense. And then it didn't.it was settled,, then it wasnt,,
We already had a thread on that topic. Context was everything, but one tent ignored context.Really? I can name three of them that violated their oath by lying to congress. Telling the senate that roe v wade was settled law.
now youre catching on,,Your post made sense. And then it didn't.
The context was testifying to the US Senate under oath.We already had a thread on that topic. Context was everything, but one tent ignored context.
No, they didn't lie.
now youre catching on,,
now what about your claim of dems trying to add more judges?? or did you just make it up??
still waiting for you to back up your claim,,25th United States Congress - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837,
the left is a small minority in this country
Strange how you have to swear to tell the truth to appear before the court but not to preside over itReally? I can name three of them that violated their oath by lying to congress. Telling the senate that roe v wade was settled law.
