# From the SCOTUS thread in P&E **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 9, 2026, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-scotus-thread-in-p-e/1034722 "2026-11-09T01:23:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2026, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-scotus-thread-in-p-e/1034722/1 "2026-11-09T01:23:21Z")
> [@New plot for Supreme Court - is it possible](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-plot-for-supreme-court-is-it-possible/1034717/18): > > **Moderating:** > > @DrDeth > > Quote what in that link you think supports your post. A blind link that has nothing to do with your post with your track record will get you a warning. > > There is no more tolerance for your semi-trolling. Even if inadvertent, it is a problem. With respect, this is from his link, and it does seem to have to do with his post: > \*\* > Who decides how many Justices are on the Court? Have there always been nine?\*\* > > The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred. Is the problem that he didn’t specify which Q&A from the link that he was referring to? Sorry, I am confused. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2026, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-scotus-thread-in-p-e/1034722/2 "2026-11-09T01:30:30Z")
He should have quoted it, not made a blind link. He has a long habit of linking to things that don’t support what he posted. Also this guidance was only for him. But we do generally ask posters to quote the pertinent part in #Politics & Elections and #Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2026, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-scotus-thread-in-p-e/1034722/3 "2026-11-09T02:07:28Z")
@DrDeth did take the moderation to heart and provided a better example of the same latter on, to his credit: > [@New plot for Supreme Court - is it possible](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-plot-for-supreme-court-is-it-possible/1034717/21): > > The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred. Where the original link was to a _general_ SCOTUS FAQ with 15 (!) different possible questions. Yes, one of which was a very short section, quoted in my example above by @DrDeth. It is absolutely better when drawing on a general source to quote the specifics. If the cite/link had been _only_ about the history and legal backing of the number of justices, it would have been better as an un-excerpted link, but it’s _generally_ better to give your fellow posters an idea of what the cite says rather than click to get it all. Especially when it’s a general, rather than a specific site. It’s also serves a _good purpose_, because you have a chance to make sure your cite says **what you think it does** , which is the concern @What_Exit explicitly addressed. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2026, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-scotus-thread-in-p-e/1034722/4 "2026-11-09T03:10:14Z")
Okay, thanks for the clarification (and guidance, which I might need myself some time). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2026, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-scotus-thread-in-p-e/1034722/5 "2026-11-09T03:25:44Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > He should have quoted it, not made a blind link. My apologies.