Ding dong RBG is dead

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

HJB

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
804
Location
Texas
Needs to b an additional 4 so the total is an uneven number and no ties.

Woody
I'm sure that takes some sort of legislation to change the number of justices. And the dems plan on passing a bill if they gain the senate majority and the POTUS in this election. Republicans can't possibly do it because they do not even control the house of reps and are not likely to gain the majority in this election and are going to be lucky if they hold the senate.
 
Last edited:

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,284
Reaction score
5,179
Location
Kingfisher County
I'm sure that takes some sort of legislation or a constitutional amendment. And the dems plan on passing a bill if they gain the senate majority and the POTUS in this election. Republicans can't possibly do it because they do not even control the house of reps.

It won't require a Constitutional Amendment. The authority to add or diminish the number of judges on the court is determined by an act of Congress, and won't take effect unless approved by the President, or not vetoed by the President and left on his desk unsigned for 10 days(Sundays excepted) while Congress remains in session, or a presidential veto is overridden by two-thirds of each house of Congress.

I think a constitutional amendment limiting the number of justices on the Supreme Court would be a good thing. It would prevent stacking the Court for any reason including for political purposes. If a legitimate need arose to add justices to the Court, a new amendment could be enacted and ratified.

Woody
 

HJB

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
804
Location
Texas
It won't require a Constitutional Amendment. The authority to add or diminish the number of judges on the court is determined by an act of Congress, and won't take effect unless approved by the President, or not vetoed by the President and left on his desk unsigned for 10 days(Sundays excepted) while Congress remains in session, or a presidential veto is overridden by two-thirds of each house of Congress.

I think a constitutional amendment limiting the number of justices on the Supreme Court would be a good thing. It would prevent stacking the Court for any reason including for political purposes. If a legitimate need arose to add justices to the Court, a new amendment could be enacted and ratified.

Woody
I know that congress can do it now, but a Constitutional amendment is the other way. I agree with you that should be done, but there is not a snow ball's chance that will every happen.
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
3,510
Location
Enid, OK
True, but he's not in the mainstream media. Most of tjhe broadcast and print media, cannot praise Justice Ginsberg enough. The MSM like her committment to social justuce, because she agreed with them on it. The article was quite correct in that a judge's job is not to ensure that 'justice' is done, but is simply to apply the law to the case at issue. What many judges have done is to let their vision of what is right overrule what the law says and that is not ethical.
 

NikatKimber

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Moderator
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,770
Reaction score
1,492
Location
Claremore
So you just assumed that was the case...I see.

Do you not agree that a short post by the merging mod about the merge would add some clarity to the thread?

It’s never been “standard practice” in the decade + I’ve been a mod. Sometimes a mod will post something to the effect of “threads merged” sometimes not. I see no reason to change.

I just read this thread just now. It was clear within a few posts that two or more threads had been merged.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom