How many Supreme Court justices would it take?

[Pleonast]

@Shodan

I am not generally convinced by arguments ad populum. If they’re wrong, it doesn’t matter how many of them are wrong.

Referring to the number of Supreme Court justices is not an argument ad populum. It’s an appeal to authority, and not a fallacy in this case, since the they are an authority in interpreting the Constitution.

[jackdavinci]

It will take a well written ruling to convince me. Simple number of votes is not too meaningful.

[Shodan]

@Pleonast

Referring to the number of Supreme Court justices is not an argument ad populum. It’s an appeal to authority, and not a fallacy in this case, since the they are an authority in interpreting the Constitution.

The question of the OP was how many Justices it would take to convince me. Not the mere fact that the Supreme Court has overruled me - how big a majority. Appealing to the number of those disagreeing is an argument *ad populum. *

If the OP had simply asked if having SCOTUS rule against your position, would that convince you, but the appeal was to numbers.

Regards,
Shodan

[RTFirefly]

@Der_Trihs

After watching the court hand Bush the Presidency in an obviously political decision, I lost all respect for its judgment & honesty, and it lost all moral authority in my eyes.

I figured that might be a one-off, and I think it was, until the Roberts court got rolling.

Scalia and Kennedy both turn 80 during the next Presidential term, so the odds are excellent that whoever we elect as President this November will get to choose at least one Justice, one that would either preserve the current conservative majority, or flip it. If that doesn’t figure into your vote (regardless of your political leanings), it really should.

[RTFirefly]

@Pleonast

Referring to the number of Supreme Court justices is not an argument ad populum. It’s an appeal to authority, and not a fallacy in this case, since the they are an authority in interpreting the Constitution.

They are an authority in interpreting the Constitution in that their interpretation is legally decisive.

That doesn’t make their interpretations correct in any other sense of the term. Elevation to the Supreme Court doesn’t suddenly imbue a lawyer with additional wisdom, intellect, and understanding of the law and the Constitution. If Bush had managed to put Harriet Miers on the Court, she’d still have been a dunce.

[Rysdad]

@Lord_Il_Palazzo

I’m of the same opinion(s). I like the general shape of the legislation, but don’t think it’s actually constitutional. Hopefully, the court will scrap it and the next congress will find a way to make it actually work.

Me, too. I’m strongly in favor of universal care, but as it’s created under the law in question, I feel it’s an over-reach of the Commerce Clause.

[Rachellelogram]

Laws and constitutionality will vary depending on the times (*when *the court opines, historically), the political alignment of the justices (left vs right), and the individuals in question (their own preferences and hidden agendas). Besides, even if something *is *unconstitutional, they could just add an amendment to the constitution and make it constitutional.

My answer is: I’m more concerned with morality and ethics than legality anyway. So I don’t feel qualified to answer the question. And frankly, my ability to affect the law is zero. I’m not a lobbyist, and I don’t know one. So I don’t give 2 shits what they decide.