No, the size of the Supreme Court is fixed by law. So Congress would have to pass a law changing the size of the Court, which they could do. They could also add new Justices who wouldn’t be replaced upon death, if they so chose.
Or, alternatively, they could pass a law in January 2019 saying that no new Justices will be appointed to fill any vacancies until February 2021. I hope they do this, as it would be more efficient than having to vote them all down individually, and would spare us more sordid spectacles like today’s hearing.
Since 1789. Congress has always had the authority to set the size of the Supreme Court, to establish or abolish any federal courts inferior to it, and to establish what is and isn’t within a given Court’s jurisdiction outside the specific points enumerated in the Constitution.
I see nothing in the text of the Constitution that says it can’t.
When the financial collapse happens, things will change.
I think the Democrats will need to work with the military, find a Barry McCaffrey type but someone who’s more loathsome. Find a centrist in the military who understands that we will need a period of extra-constitutional rehabilitation for a certain segment of the population.
OK, I know that Senate Committee hearings are not court proceedings, but the blatant and utterly shameless manipulation of procedure by the Republicans during today’s hearing gives me a migraine. Meanwhile, if there were any real justice in the world Kavanaugh’s jaw-droppingly unhinged performance should get him bounced from SOTUS consideration on temperament alone.
At least there’s the interesting visual contrast between a red-faced Kavanaugh doing his best Col. Jessup impression and Dr. Ford nervously but convincingly presenting her story. Hope to see lots of video repeats over the next few weeks, and good luck to all those Repub up for mid-term election hoping to carry their districts with 10-20% of the female vote.
Constitution says there will be a Supreme Court, but little guidance on what or how. Left if up to Mr Marshall to make shit up. Then they all shrugged and said “Yeah, sure, that’ll do”. Saw it on Stoned History
The Constitution is silent on the topic of how many people the Supreme Court consists of. It refers to its members as “judges” in plural, which implies it was intended to consist of more than one person, but it doesn’t say whether it has to be two people or a hundred. Congress set its size at 6 in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and each subsequent change in its size has been due to an act of Congress. I would argue that that power is rooted in the necessary-and-proper clause.
It pretty much does (and in countries with the Westminister system, the legislature is completely in control of the other branches of government.)
We’re living in a post-fact, post-truth world, and that was on full display today. What the authoritarian party wants is a dynamic in which people are confused, uncertain, and can’t know what the truth is. If you read the reactions on the news, that’s what happened. Republicans found a way not to mute questions about Kavanaugh but to raise just enough questions about critics so that middlers, centrists, undecideds lack certainty about what the truth is.
Actually I would argue that congress CAN NOT legislate the size of the court because that runs counter to the explicit role of the senate to impeach judges (which is in the constitution).
If congress can resize the court as it sees fit you no longer need a 2/3 majority to get rid of people on the court. Just have 50% vote to resize the court and toss members off.
Get control of congress with 50%, pass a law that says there is one justice on the Supreme Court and fire everyone else.
Then pass a new law making it nine again and appoint all your own cronies.
I’m not going to link to this (and I’m sure her name will come out in due course): but someone (with a reasonably high profile) just called out Senator Joe Fain for raping her in 2007.
(sourced directly from twitter, views of the author, unverified by myself)
This is the start of a reckoning. Watching this last night, seeing Ford this morning and reading about what Kavanaugh had to say: I think we’ve finally hit whats gonna be the #metoo tipping point. We are going to hear more stories, there is going to be much more stronger and more violent push-back. Hold onto your hats people. (Posted in this thread because this allegation was inspired by the testimony today.)
And to those that have come forward in the past and that are coming forward in the future, aroha nui. Kia kaha, I stand with you.
I get why Trump wants Justice “Presidents are immune from prosecution” but I don’t understand why Republican senators are defending this guy. It’s not like the choice is Kavanaugh or a liberal justice. All they have to do is ask the Federalist Society who’s next on the list and confirm.
Also, if I understand correctly, if one R on the committee votes against then that’s it. It seems to me that the most likely are Jeff Flake or Ben Sasse. Neither guy particularly likes Trump so it’s possible but probably unlikely.
Well, since 1789. It’s this thing called the Constitution. Checks and balances and such. Explicitly gives Congress the ability to establish inferior courts, for example.
Well, no. The Constitution only mentions a Chief Justice position. All the other associate justices of SCOTUS are per law.
And since the means of setting the size of the Senate is right there in the Constitution, two per state, the judicial branch rightly has no power to regulate that. And the initial numbers of Representatives for each state is listed right in the Constitution, to be effective until a reapportionment following a census. And there is a set maximum of 1 representative per 30,000 population, though we are in no danger to violating that anytime soon.
Sure, in theory. Again, only the Chief Justice position is in the Constitution.
A constitutional amendment is the only thing and yeah…good luck with that.
So stacking the court is a thing.
They passed that bogus law because Roosevelt threatened to stack the court. Doesn’t mean the law holds.
As I showed if you can legislate the size of the court you bypass the senate’s explicit role in removing judges and needing a 2/3 majority. A helluva lot easier for a new congress that has 50% majority to resize the court.
Republicans could do that right now if you are right and I am wrong. Get rid of all the liberals in one fell swoop.
The full Senate can still vote on a nomination regardless of how the committee votes. In theory a Republican on the committee could vote no, and the full Senate could be a 50-50 tie with VP Pence casting the tie breaker to confirm the nomination.
Find where congress can set its size in the constitution and square that with the constitutional requirement for a 2/3 majority to remove a judge (if 50% resize the court down you can remove a judge by your reckoning).