Trump Might Get Another SCOTUS Pick Soon (Page 3): That part of what wrong with you...

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

EyeSawYou wrote:

Typical Lib? lol I'm actually a conservative.

That part of what wrong with you

Tex-s

Frank T wrote:

More than one w as y to skin a cat. Next time there's a Democrat as President well just make SCOTUS 11 justices

There MIGHT be a method established by which judges are slated to assume positions on the SCOTUS before the departure or death of seated justices, but there will never be an addition of Justices, short of a Constitutional Amendment. Not even the i***t-level lack of foresight in DC wants to see the Congress or President manipulating the number of justices. Trump adds two and a Democrat adds 2 more, repeat..... pointless.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

Tex-s wrote:

There MIGHT be a method established by which judges are slated to assume positions on the SCOTUS before the departure or death of seated justices, but there will never be an addition of Justices, short of a Constitutional Amendment. Not even the i***t-level lack of foresight in DC wants to see the Congress or President manipulating the number of justices. Trump adds two and a Democrat adds 2 more, repeat..... pointless.

It is a process that is quite easy and has been done to increase the courts size in the past. Only needs congressional approval and presidents signature. The constitution says nothing about the size of the court. You should read it instead of your daily briefings from your handlers.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Tex-s wrote:

There MIGHT be a method established by which judges are slated to assume positions on the SCOTUS before the departure or death of seated justices, but there will never be an addition of Justices, short of a Constitutional Amendment. Not even the i***t-level lack of foresight in DC wants to see the Congress or President manipulating the number of justices. Trump adds two and a Democrat adds 2 more, repeat..... pointless.

The Constitution does not designate the number of judges on the Supreme Court. Hence, there is no Constitutional Amendment needed. Just a v**e in the house and the Senate.

Tex-s

mjmoore17 wrote:

It is a process that is quite easy and has been done to increase the courts size in the past. Only needs congressional approval and presidents signature. The constitution says nothing about the size of the court. You should read it instead of your daily briefings from your handlers.

I reread my post and I see I did not write what I was thinking.

My thought was that no party, regardless of short term 'need' would start the daisy chain of adding more justices, as it would never end. My amendment thought was that one party or the other might press an amendment to define a new number and block the other party from re-packing the Court. Poor construction on my part.

I also refrained at that time, but will not do so now, from noting how well the Democrats have faired with Harry Reid having changed the Senate rules to suit his short term purposes..... GOP got to pack the judiciary...

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Tex-s wrote:

I reread my post and I see I did not write what I ... (show quote)

Well then how do you explain having gone from 7 to 9?

Tex-s

Frank T wrote:

Well then how do you explain having gone from 7 to 9?

If we are asking about 7 to 9, why not ask about from 10 to 7 and from 7 to 10 and from 5 to 7?

It's always been a political wrestling match to 'control' the judiciary, but in today's climate, I think even the DC idiocrats know they can't pass off a SCOTUS manipulation as anything but a power grab and that a revolt or a new civil war could be hot on the heels of such a move.

Also, even in the throes of a great depression, FDR could not sell a change to the SCOTUS that was clearly a power grab. Then again, that was in the times of actual, t***hful, journalism, so maybe today's sheeple could be sold on a power grab......

Not a pleasant thought if my choices are a packed, activist, government-expanding SCOTUS or a modern Civil War.... I just hope I'm right about not packing the court either way.

Tex-s

Frank T wrote:

Well then how do you explain having gone from 7 to 9?

Ignore this. My last post said it failed and the repost made this one a duplicate.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

Tex-s wrote:

If we are asking about 7 to 9, why not ask about f... (show quote)

The republicans are going to pretend to be offended by a power grab after they reduced the size of the Supreme Court during Obama’s last year. Now they think that they have a moral compass. Grab your ankles because it is going to hurt.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Tex-s wrote:

There MIGHT be a method established by which judges are slated to assume positions on the SCOTUS before the departure or death of seated justices, but there will never be an addition of Justices, short of a Constitutional Amendment. Not even the i***t-level lack of foresight in DC wants to see the Congress or President manipulating the number of justices. Trump adds two and a Democrat adds 2 more, repeat..... pointless.

The number can be raised and lowered.