Congressional Democrats are expected to introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, likely intensifying the debate over the future of the high court.
[Breyer] suggested last week that adding seats could risk politicizing the court and potentially erode public confidence in the institution.
I’m also concerned that if we don’t do something about the Colorado River it may eventually erode the land and create a huge canyon.
He suggested last week that adding seats could risk politicizing the court and potentially erode public confidence in the institution.
That train has sailed.
potentially erode public confidence in the institution
Just where do you think public confidence is right now bucko?
Manchin and Sinema will make sure that this bill dies, unfortunately.
“President Biden campaigned on a promise of lowering the temperature and uniting a divided nation,” McConnell said in a statement last week. “If he really meant it, he would stop giving oxygen to a dangerous, antiquated idea and stand up to the partisans hawking it.”
McConnell isn’t serious in his call for bi-partisanship. What he really means is that Democrats should just surrender.
I also think the timing of this proposal is too soon, meaning that Biden’s commission to study the matter has yet to come to any meaningful conclusion. In the end, their conclusion may be to expand the SCOTUS, but for perception’s sake, Dems should not put the cart before the horse. Be thoughtful and deliberate in our actions, and base our decisions on sound evidence. IOW, not like Republicans.
It’s statements like this one by Bryer that tell me it’s time for him to retire. Obviously he has been sleeping for the past 4 years or so
Apparently it is too soon, as they haven’t whipped up the votes to pass it.
However, it does set down markers and turn up the heat, which I suspect was more of its purpose.
Merrick frickin’ Garland and President frickin’ Obama on lines one and two, justice Breyer. It seems they have some choice words about the court not yet being “politicized.”
Perhaps we could divert the water to be used for farming in California and to supply communities that’ve grown unsustainably large in the desert?
The Supreme Court has been a partisan political body since the days of John Marshall. Marshall used his opinion in Marbury v Madison to publish a long attack on the Jeffersonians ending with the entire Judiciary Act is unconstitutional. He made a big deal of constitutionality as if it were something new; it was simply the old legal question of whether something was ultra or intra vires. In McCullough v Maryland, he posited “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” That is simply nonsense; an excuse to prevent a tax on his beloved bank. A similar case in Canada (Bank of Toronto v. Lambe) elicited this critique of Marshall - just because a power may be abused is no reason why it may not be used. It was also stated that if the drafters of the then BNA Act of 1867 believed that all Quebec would do would be to abuse its power of taxation, it would have never given Quebec the power in the first place.
Nine is not a sacred number. The Supreme Court of Norway has 20 members. It decides whether to hear a case by a committee of 3; decides ordinary cases with a banc of 5; cases involving precedents with a banc of 11; and decides constitutional/fundamental questions with all 20.
But my major point is this. Justices are not appointed because of their legal merits. Republicans used to respect the evaluations of the Bar Association. No longer. The ignoring of the Garland nomination clearly puts very composition of the Court in play. Let me add that the US Supreme Court no longer enjoys the respect of courts in other countries. May I suggest one read the interview of Justice Rosalie Abella of the Supreme Court of Canada (a great jurist, the greatest living jurist, ) with the Dean of Fordham Law School.
Rosalie Silberman Abella and Matthew Diller, A Conversation with the Honorable Rosalie Silberman Abellaand Dean Matthew Diller, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 843 (2018). She is polite but it is clear what the world thinks of the Supreme Court and how it interprets the constitution.
I’m delighted for the opportunity this will create for Fox News to host a reasoned, nuanced discussion about the history of the court, why we have nine justices now, earlier eras of politicized courts, and the pros and cons of expanding the court to 13 or any other number. Starting with Hannity and Tucker tonight.
Is an odd number a good idea? I would think that adding Two new Justices would make sense.
It prevents ties.
The ship has already gone off the rails.
Mitch McConnell, like the previous guy only smart, will say anything to seal the deal. It always sounds plausible at the time … if you ignore what he said the day before. He’s a regular “Bad Faith Mitch.” Now that he no longer presides over the Senate, the media should largely ignore his Lie of the Day, other than to fact check it and provide the history of previous contradictions and yes, bad faith arguments.
The horses have already come home to roost.
The phrase go off the rails has been in use since the mid-1800s and is a reference to a train derailment. When a train goes off the rails it is no longer progressing along its preordained track and is uncontrollable and chaotic. … Related phrases are goes off the rails , went off the rails , going off the rails .
It won’t go anywhere. . .yet.
But now the idea is no longer just wishful thinking by Washington outsiders. It is now sitting members of Congress who are officially proposing the idea. That alone gives it a seriousness of purpose and discussion that increases awareness of the idea.
And big ideas often start small, then grow as momentum for them builds.
That chicken won’t hunt.