Biden Forming a Commision to Change the Supreme Court

rivshark86

Active member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
994
Reaction score
184
Points
43
Look when Lincoln was elected every single Justice was a Democrat appointee, and there there only 8 justices. One had died and the position was still vacant upon Lincoln’s election. About half of the court was from the south if you count the Chief Justice who was from Maryland. Maryland during that time had plenty of southern sympathies.
This is a good place for a reminder that Lincoln routinely defied the Supreme Court with regard to habeas corpus. He was detaining southern sympathizers without trail, and he completely ignored the court when they ruled against him. At the time he recognized that half of the court justices were from states in open rebellion!!!!
Although a right to a trail I think we all can agree is very important.
The point is this. For the entire history of our nation we have had nine positions*** and I mean positions, not justices, but positions on the Supreme Court. Positions that can only be filled when the two other separate but equal branch’s of government (legislator and executive) agree on the person to fill these positions. The only time we have not had 9 positions was literally due to civil war. A real civil war, where the rebels still held half the seats on the court.

So to bring up these times where there were not nine POSITIONS***** on the Supreme Court is a very disingenuous argument. It suggests that it happened in peacetime. Not when half the country was trying to secede and they still held half the seats on the court, and literally every single justice was a democrat.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
Because it's a waste of time. If they wanted to leave the lower court ruling standing, they could just decide not to take the case. Them taking the case in the first place inherently implies they either wish to affirm it as correct and set it as global precedence, or to overturn it and set that as global precedence. Either way they're taking it because they think the matter is of sufficient legal import to have the matter at hand "settled" as far as precedence, or because it is a significant case in some other way. They're not taking them and taking their time just to basically bow out and say "nevermind, as you were".
Actually, many times the SC will hear argument and then remand the case back to the lower court with some limited instructions. They actually did this in the SDNY case against Trump and the Trump Organization regarding the subpoenas for the financial documents.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
Look when Lincoln was elected every single Justice was a Democrat appointee, and there there only 8 justices. One had died and the position was still vacant upon Lincoln’s election. About half of the court was from the south if you count the Chief Justice who was from Maryland. Maryland during that time had plenty of southern sympathies.
This is a good place for a reminder that Lincoln routinely defied the Supreme Court with regard to habeas corpus. He was detaining southern sympathizers without trail, and he completely ignored the court when they ruled against him. At the time he recognized that half of the court justices were from states in open rebellion!!!!
Although a right to a trail I think we all can agree is very important.
The point is this. For the entire history of our nation we have had nine positions*** and I mean positions, not justices, but positions on the Supreme Court. Positions that can only be filled when the two other separate but equal branch’s of government (legislator and executive) agree on the person to fill these positions. The only time we have not had 9 positions was literally due to civil war. A real civil war, where the rebels still held half the seats on the court.

So to bring up these times where there were not nine POSITIONS***** on the Supreme Court is a very disingenuous argument. It suggests that it happened in peacetime. Not when half the country was trying to secede and they still held half the seats on the court, and literally every single justice was a democrat.
So precedent doesn't matter, nor the tenets of the Constitution, when it comes to the number of justices. Okay. Then let's use that line of thought to go back to muskets instead of semi-automatic assault weapons. See how that works?

Btw, as I previously stated, there was a time when there were 5 and then 7 justices. There is nothing that says it must be nine.

And the last thing I am is disingenuous.
 

rivshark86

Active member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
994
Reaction score
184
Points
43
So precedent doesn't matter, nor the tenets of the Constitution, when it comes to the number of justices. Okay. Then let's use that line of thought to go back to muskets instead of semi-automatic assault weapons. See how that works?

Btw, as I previously stated, there was a time when there were 5 and then 7 justices. There is nothing that says it must be nine.

And the last thing I am is disingenuous.

From 1835 till the civil war there were 9 justices. In the civil war it changed for the reasons listed above. Under Grants administration it went back to 9.
Yes precedent matters. Especially with an institution like the Supreme Court.

But your right it’s only precedent that keeps it at nine, and if the left wants to start expanding the court every time a new party takes over......... well..... two can play that game and soon the Supreme Court will be larger than Congress.

And what do muskets vs riffles have to do with anything?
The text says right to bear arms. Arms. The founders realized weapons evolve. They didn’t differentiate between muskets and crossbows, or swords. They placed value on language and words, and picked them very carefully.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,672
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
From 1835 till the civil war there were 9 justices. In the civil war it changed for the reasons listed above. Under Grants administration it went back to 9.
Yes precedent matters. Especially with an institution like the Supreme Court.

But your right it’s only precedent that keeps it at nine, and if the left wants to start expanding the court every time a new party takes over......... well..... two can play that game and soon the Supreme Court will be larger than Congress.
Stating the obvious: they only want to change the number of justices right now because it doesn't suit their political agenda. Has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution nor fairness. It is purely ideological.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
Stating the obvious: they only want to change the number of justices right now because it doesn't suit their political agenda. Has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution nor fairness. It is purely ideological.
Don't speak for an entire body of Americans.

I never said anything about wanting to expand the SC. My point is that it can be constitutionally. What was the political agenda, btw, in 2015 or would you prefer to sweep that 11-month empty seat and refusal to have hearings under the rug?
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,672
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Don't speak for an entire body of Americans.

I never said anything about wanting to expand the SC. My point is that it can be constitutionally. What was the political agenda, btw, in 2015 or would you prefer to sweep that 11-month empty seat and refusal to have hearings under the rug?
I wasn't responding to YOU. Note who I quoted.

Have a nice day.
 

AkPatsFan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
1,873
Points
113
Location
Eagle River, Ak
Stating the obvious: they only want to change the number of justices right now because it doesn't suit their political agenda. Has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution nor fairness. It is purely ideological.
And note that it's always the Democrats that want it expanded, have you ever heard the GOP call for more than 9 justices because I sure haven't.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,672
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
And note that it's always the Democrats that want it expanded, have you ever heard the GOP call for more than 9 justices because I sure haven't.
Not that I recall. At least not in our lifetimes.
 

PatsFanLisa

No filter
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Location
Sharon
I wasn't responding to YOU. Note who I quoted.
Make sure you practice what you preach the next time I respond to someone else and you find it necessary to comment. LOL

And just FYI, this is message board. When you encompass an entire demographic or group of people in your comments, anyone can certainly respond.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,672
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Make sure you practice what you preach the next time I respond to someone else and you find it necessary to comment. LOL

And just FYI, this is message board. When you encompass an entire demographic or group of people in your comments, anyone can certainly respond.
Respnd to me anytime you want. I enjoy it. That said, when you say this in response to my post:

"I never said anything about wanting to expand the SC."

And I wasn't addressing you.... LOL
 

Grandmaster B

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
1,526
Reaction score
462
Points
83
Location
The Happy
And note that it's always the Democrats that want it expanded, have you ever heard the GOP call for more than 9 justices because I sure haven't.
The GOP has been doing it at the state level.

Arizona and Georgia both expanded theirs in recent years.
 

TipRoast

Recall all the dreams that you once used to know
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
9,134
Reaction score
2,167
Points
113
Location
A maze of twisting little passages, all different
The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the size of the Supreme Court to 6 (one chief justice and 5 associates).

Under John Adams's presidency, the Judiciary Act of 1801 was passed, which reduced the size of the Supreme Count to 5.

However, that was quickly repealed when Jefferson became president and the number of justices reverted to six. It wasn't until 1869 that the current number of nine justices became the standard.

Any claims that the size of the Supreme Count has always been 9 for the entire history of the nation are simply not true.

What would be really interesting to me would be for Congress to pass a law that affects the Supreme Count, and then for someone to challenge that law, and have the Supreme Court declare the law unconstitutional.

That would lead to a constitutional crisis, I think, as it's very possible that Congress would view the Court as being in a position where it would have a conflict of interest and so, as a body, would have to recuse itself.
 

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
17,548
Reaction score
8,895
Points
113
The GOP has been doing it at the state level.

Arizona and Georgia both expanded theirs in recent years.
To 7 and 9 respectively most are seven and they have various ways of appointment and term limits too.

~Dee~
 

AnOldTroll

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
5,079
Reaction score
1,586
Points
113
Location
America's Finest City
I'm saying what makes the Supreme Court so special that its needs can't change like state courts?
Just wondering in your opinion, what is the reason you support a change since it hasn't been done since 1869...
My opinion, at this juncture of the mess we are experiencing, it's the last thing we should even be messing with.
wtf is up.
 
Top