EyeSawYou

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I think that this is rash, if we are going to amend the constitution in regard to SCOTUS then more thought needs to be given than simply holding the number of justices to nine. The concept of judicial review was not addressed by the founders, it was something left out of the constitutional debates. It is an assumed power by the court itself, one that Jefferson himself declared an existential threat to our democracy. If we are going to amend our constitution regarding the constitution then some serious thought is required regarding the court and the establishment of checks and balances for that branch of our government.

wsnyder Loc: Illinois

I heard an interesting debate on the make up of SCOTUS. Presently, the president picks and the senate either approves or rejects. The party in majority make up of the senate has a lot of weight. Under this proposal the Dems would pick three, the Reps would pick three. Those six would pick the remaining three spots. Deaths and retirements by the "neutrals" would be filled by those six as well. Vacancies of the party appointees of course fill by the party involved

This could make for a more balanced court.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Probably better than what we have now, in my opinion there should be some sort of challenge process to the SCOTUS decisions, kind of like a veto power that would require a super majority. Judicial review is nowhere in our constitution, the founders in my opinion did not consider it, they were careful to set checks and balances on the other two branches but completely overlooked the judiciary, ,n my opinion that was because they never thought that the court would perform judicial review. A huge oversight because judicial review must occur, however, the power that the court yields today makes them 9 founding fathers whose rulings require no ratification as did our constitution and the amendments to it.

Angmo

Hey, trump could really pack the courts. Roosevelt did.

EyeSawYou

Trump refuses to even entertain that idea he says, good choice.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

The chance of 38 states passing this amendment is practically nil.
We're still waiting for the ERA to pass and that was started in 1972.
Maybe Rubio should think about a career as a Poland Springs spokesperson.

EyeSawYou

It probably has more of a chance at passing than does the eliminating the E*******l College process though an amendment.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Roosevelt sought to pack the court, but it got knocked down. Get your history right.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

E*******l College dies a natural death if enough states sign on to the National Popular V**e Compact. I believe at last count they had 186 e*******l v**es and will need 270 to be 100% effective.

pendennis

The ultimate in judicial misconduct is probably Marbury v. Madison. It's always cited as the decision which landed legal finality to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, it was badly decided, because Chief Justice Marshall was a party to the original law suit.

The previous posters have nailed it. There is slim to no chance of an amendment being adopted. Additionally, there's no chance that an amendment would even get out of the Senate. Those members, for good or bad, decide on judicial nominations. No one will ever give up that power.

As to the E*******l College, it's more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would enforce the traditional method of "winner takes all" in P**********l e******ns. And the same logic applies as changes to nominating judges/justices. No state is going to give up that power to New York and California.

One only needs look at the states which would oppose any change: North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri... You get the picture.

EyeSawYou

LOL it will never happen!

'The Danger of the National Popular V**e Compact'

https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/the-danger-of-the-national-popular-v**e-compact/

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

This is about democrats trying to gain power. They don't want Trump possibly appointing one or two more. They are paving the way to get their guys on the court. Just more crap from dems.

EyeSawYou

Remember when desperate Democrats tried to bully state e*****rates to change their states v**e to from Trump to Hillary? LOL

Angmo

You don’t get it. That’s all.