View Single Post
  #40  
Old 04-01-2019, 04:30 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The senate refused to consider the nomination of Garland.

The Senate can do as it wills in this regard. Who can say otherwise? The law mandated nine justices but they let it continue with eight for over a year.

If the Senate can stall on eight justices why not seven or fewer? Who can stop them from making it 10 or more?

Can congress make the supreme court one or no justices? If they can set it at nine why not one or none?

I am not saying I like this arrangement but it seems to be where we are.
Refusing to fill a particular vacancy at a particular time isn't the same things as changing the size of the Court. The law sets the size of the Court currently at 9. But if the Senate won't confirm anyone to fill a vacancy of course it will be smaller until the political gridlock resolves. Theoretically they could all die off and there would be no Justices at all. But the Senate can't add a 10th Justice (unless both Houses pass a law allowing them to do so). They can't remove Justices (other than through impeachment), either; if they were to pass a law reducing the size of the Court to five, none of the current Justices would have to leave. But the next four to die or resign wouldn't be replaced.