# omnibus Supreme Court-packing thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 1, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873 "2019-04-01T18:10:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/41 "2019-04-01T21:31:01Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The Republicans have, in fact, killed the legislative filibuster. Reconciliation can only be used to pass bills that decrease the deficit, and they used it to pass the tax cuts which increased the deficit. If the party in power just plain ignores the rules, then the rules effectively don’t exist. That’s not right. The legislative filibuster is alive and well. There’s been an exception to that, reconciliation, that’s been in place for years. That exception is still in place, as is the general requirement to have 60 votes for cloture for almost all legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/42 "2019-04-01T21:34:01Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Sure. > > You have not shown where it is allowed for one branch of government to limit another branch of government. > > Nor have you shown why, when making a government with checks and balances, that this would even be a good idea. Well, how do YOU think it works? Do you think the Constitution just sets the number of Justices at 9 eternally? Then how do you explain the numerous times in history that Congress has changed the size of the Court? HD, Chronos, and others are correct in explaining how it actually works; proving that it is a “good idea” isn’t their responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/43 "2019-04-01T21:35:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Sure. > > You have not shown where it is allowed for one branch of government to limit another branch of government. > > Nor have you shown why, when making a government with checks and balances, that this would even be a good idea. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “limit”. A bunch of what most people would recognize as “checks and balances” are indeed one branch “limiting” another branch of government. At least, that’s the word I’d use to describe it when SCOTUS declares one of Congress’ laws unconstitutional, or Congress impeaches the President, or refuses to fund some executive branch department, or the President vetoes one of Congress’ proposals. How are those NOT one branch of government limiting another branch of government? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/44 "2019-04-01T21:35:44Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > 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. Why can congress set the number of justices? Seems a constitutional matter to me. If they can set it at nine they can set it at one or none. If none they can abolish a branch of government. Which would seem crazy but if they can set any number then zero is a number. My point being, congress does not have the right to limit another branch of government. The executive through the senate is the only prescribed means of getting people on the court per the constitution (which trumps congressional laws). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/45 "2019-04-01T21:37:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “limit”. A bunch of what most people would recognize as “checks and balances” are indeed one branch “limiting” another branch of government. At least, that’s the word I’d use to describe it when SCOTUS declares one of Congress’ laws unconstitutional, or Congress impeaches the President, or refuses to fund some executive branch department, or the President vetoes one of Congress’ proposals. How are those NOT one branch of government limiting another branch of government? “Limits” would be new laws or congress impeaching a sitting justice. All as set forth in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/46 "2019-04-01T21:42:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why can congress set the number of justices? > > Seems a constitutional matter to me. > > If they can set it at nine they can set it at one or none. If none they can abolish a branch of government. Which would seem crazy but if they can set any number then zero is a number. > > My point being, congress does not have the right to limit another branch of government. The executive through the senate is the only prescribed means of getting people on the court per the constitution (which trumps congressional laws). Is your current operating theory that it would be perfectly lawful and kosher for President Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to a 10th seat on the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republican pals could schedule the hearing, confirm ACB, and just like that the Court has been expanded to 10 justices? You think that would be legal? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/47 "2019-04-01T21:47:25Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Is your current operating theory that it would be perfectly lawful and kosher for President Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to a 10th seat on the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republican pals could schedule the hearing, confirm ACB, and just like that the Court has been expanded to 10 justices? > > You think that would be legal? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/48 "2019-04-01T21:50:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why can congress set the number of justices? > > Seems a constitutional matter to me. > > If they can set it at nine they can set it at one or none. If none they can abolish a branch of government. Which would seem crazy but if they can set any number then zero is a number. > > My point being, congress does not have the right to limit another branch of government. This is just wrong at every level. The American government is set up so that all three branches can limit each other. The House has the power of the purse, and can refuse to fund things. Budgets cannot be passed unless both the House and the Senate agree. Both the House and Senate have separate investigatorial powers, including the ability to investigate wrongdoing in the other branches. The President has the power of the Veto and pardon power, and as head of the executive branch has the right to determine how and when to implement what Congress passes. If he goes too far with that, he can be impeached. Both the Executive and Legislative branches of government are answerable to the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court. This structure was put in place intentionally to keep the system stable and to ensure that sweeping changes could only be made with widespread agreement. Partisans on both sides have been whittling away at that for their own advantage since the founding of the country, but the ability for each branch to have oversight over the others, and the structure of those branches, has kept the American government relatively stable and relatively functional for a very long time. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/49 "2019-04-01T21:52:43Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why can congress set the number of justices? > > Seems a constitutional matter to me. > > If they can set it at nine they can set it at one or none. If none they can abolish a branch of government. Which would seem crazy but if they can set any number then zero is a number. > > My point being, congress does not have the right to limit another branch of government. The executive through the senate is the only prescribed means of getting people on the court per the constitution (which trumps congressional laws). Have you read article 3 of the Constitution? It describes scenario where Congress can limit and affect SCOTUS. Article 1 establishes the chief justice so Congress cannot set the number to zero. The court started with six seats as established by Congress, and has gone as high as 10 as established by Congress. Your understanding of the contours of the law in this matter are contain significant errors. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/50 "2019-04-01T21:54:44Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > This is just wrong at every level. The American government is set up so that all three branches can limit each other. The House has the power of the purse, and can refuse to fund things. Budgets cannot be passed unless both the House and the Senate agree. Both the House and Senate have separate investigatorial powers, including the ability to investigate wrongdoing in the other branches. The President has the power of the Veto and pardon power, and as head of the executive branch has the right to determine how and when to implement what Congress passes. If he goes too far with that, he can be impeached. Both the Executive and Legislative branches of government are answerable to the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court. > > This structure was put in place intentionally to keep the system stable and to ensure that sweeping changes could only be made with widespread agreement. Partisans on both sides have been whittling away at that for their own advantage since the founding of the country, but the ability for each branch to have oversight over the others, and the structure of those branches, has kept the American government relatively stable and relatively functional for a very long time. This is wrong at every level. Can the executive determine the number of seats in congress? Why can congress determine the number of seats in the Supreme Court? The checks and balances come in where congress can modify a law to comport with a judicial finding or they can impeach a sitting justice. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/51 "2019-04-01T21:54:55Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Both sides need to consider the long-term effects of their actions. > > Question: What happens if you end the legislative filibuster and pack the Supreme Court? > > Simple Partisan Answer: Why, everything stays the same, except now we have control of the court and can pass any agenda we want! Win! > > Complex Answer: You get your way for a year or two, at the cost of pissing off half the country and making yourselves look like you’re engaging in a major power grab. So you lose the next election bigly, and your enemies get to use all the tools you ruined yourselves over. > > A good example is Obamacare. Institutionally, there had always been a sort of unwritten rule that seriously major legislation that would make wholesale changes to the economy or the government must be passed in a bipartisan fashion. That gives it the legitimacy necessary to withstand the shrieking that will no doubt come from special interests and partisans. The Democrats did away with that and passed a major change to the country on a strict party-line vote. The result has been eight years of fighting, court cases, and ultimately the possible destruction of the entire law. > > The notion that when your side gets ‘control’ it’s time to clean house and use every trick in the book to pass everything you want, whether done by Republicans or Democrats, is a recipe for social breakdown, chaotic governance, and the transformation of a country from one with high trust in its institutions to a low-trust society, and all the damage that brings. > > Specific to court-packing, that looks like such a blatant power grab that I predict that any governing party that tries to do it will face such a public backlash that they will get routed in the next election after. > > Also, if you are going to pack the court you need a justification for doing so other than, “They keep using the constitution against our progressive ideas.” FDR tried to claim that the court was overworked, but that was shot down by the court itself. The next idea was to force judges over 70 to retire, which would have disproportionally affected Republican judges and given FDR the ability to make multiple appointments in a short period of time. Unfortunately for the Democrats, if they tried to age-out the justices at 70, they would lose Ginsberg and Breyer, and the Republicans would only lose Thomas and I guess Alito if it’s a couple of years from now. But 70 today isn’t like it was in the 30’s, and I doubt you could ever make a forced retirement at 70 stick. And if you did, the only justices that will hit 70 in the next term are Sotomayor and Roberts. > > As a reminder, FDR’s court-packing scheme did not succeed. In today’s era, such an attempt would trigger massive civil unrest on the right, who would rightly see it as a massive power grab. This analysis ignores the fact that this is not happening in a historical vacuum; the Republicans have already been ignoring established historical norms to pack the Court in their favor. First, they refused to seat a well-qualified, moderate jurist in Merrick Garland. Then, when their next nominee was credibly accused of rape, they didn’t fully investigate the allegations, nor did they replace the nominee with someone else – because doing either of those would have risked not getting a Republican confirmed before the Senate changed hands. So there are now two members of the Court whose legitimacy is highly dubious in terms of “norms” (obviously, I am not alleging that any actual laws were broken). If those Justices, in the future, thwart popular progressive legislation passed by Democrats, the Dems would be IMO foolish to not at least consider every legal method of working around the obstacle. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/52 "2019-04-01T22:01:35Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Have you read article 3 of the Constitution? It describes scenario where Congress can limit and affect SCOTUS. Article 1 establishes the chief justice so Congress cannot set the number to zero. > > The court started with six seats as established by Congress, and has gone as high as 10 as established by Congress. Your understanding of the contours of the law in this matter are contain significant errors. Article III, Section I: > [@](#): > > The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Not seeing it. Congress can fuss with inferior courts…not the Supreme Court which is one of the three branches of government, made to be co-equal with the other two. Checks and balances. It would go 100% against the FF’s notions to let one branch supersede another branch. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/53 "2019-04-01T22:04:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes. Why do you believe that President Trump and Senator McConnell have not availed themselves of this option? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/54 "2019-04-01T22:12:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Article III, Section I: > > Not seeing it. Congress can fuss with inferior courts…not the Supreme Court which is one of the three branches of government, made to be co-equal with the other two. Checks and balances. It would go 100% against the FF’s notions to let one branch supersede another branch. Try section 2; > [@](#): > > In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. SCOTUS shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact … under such regulations as the Congress shall make. The dudes who ratified it, and operated under it at it’s creation understood this, from the first where it was originally established at 6 by an act of Congress, to when Adams reduced the size from 6 to 5 in order to try and thwart Jefferson. He did this with an act of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/55 "2019-04-01T22:13:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Why do you believe that President Trump and Senator McConnell have not availed themselves of this option? Because they already have a majority in the court. Why stack it? Plus, if they stack it then Dems have free reign to keep going if they gain power. I would bet all I own that republicans have sat in a room and gamed this out. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/56 "2019-04-01T22:15:09Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Both sides need to consider the long-term effects of their actions. > > Question: What happens if you end the legislative filibuster and pack the Supreme Court? > > Simple Partisan Answer: Why, everything stays the same, except now we have control of the court and can pass any agenda we want! Win! > > Complex Answer: You get your way for a year or two, at the cost of pissing off half the country and making yourselves look like you’re engaging in a major power grab. So you lose the next election bigly, and your enemies get to use all the tools you ruined yourselves over. > > A good example is Obamacare. Institutionally, there had always been a sort of unwritten rule that seriously major legislation that would make wholesale changes to the economy or the government must be passed in a bipartisan fashion. That gives it the legitimacy necessary to withstand the shrieking that will no doubt come from special interests and partisans. The Democrats did away with that and passed a major change to the country on a strict party-line vote. The result has been eight years of fighting, court cases, and ultimately the possible destruction of the entire law. > > The notion that when your side gets ‘control’ it’s time to clean house and use every trick in the book to pass everything you want, whether done by Republicans or Democrats, is a recipe for social breakdown, chaotic governance, and the transformation of a country from one with high trust in its institutions to a low-trust society, and all the damage that brings. > > Specific to court-packing, that looks like such a blatant power grab that I predict that any governing party that tries to do it will face such a public backlash that they will get routed in the next election after. > > Also, if you are going to pack the court you need a justification for doing so other than, “They keep using the constitution against our progressive ideas.” FDR tried to claim that the court was overworked, but that was shot down by the court itself. The next idea was to force judges over 70 to retire, which would have disproportionally affected Republican judges and given FDR the ability to make multiple appointments in a short period of time. Unfortunately for the Democrats, if they tried to age-out the justices at 70, they would lose Ginsberg and Breyer, and the Republicans would only lose Thomas and I guess Alito if it’s a couple of years from now. But 70 today isn’t like it was in the 30’s, and I doubt you could ever make a forced retirement at 70 stick. And if you did, the only justices that will hit 70 in the next term are Sotomayor and Roberts. > > As a reminder, FDR’s court-packing scheme did not succeed. In today’s era, such an attempt would trigger massive civil unrest on the right, who would rightly see it as a massive power grab. This all may (or may not) be true, but I don’t see how the alternative of _not_ attempting to pack the court is better. The court is already entirely politicized. The Republicans are already violating norms. The only long term solution is a Constitutional amendment, but that’s not likely to happen. In the mean time, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Democrats play ball the same way as the Republicans, and don’t limit themselves for reasons that Republicans have been ignoring for years. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/57 "2019-04-01T22:15:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Try section 2; > > SCOTUS shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact … under such regulations as the Congress shall make. > > The dudes who ratified it, and operated under it at it’s creation understood this, from the first where it was originally established at 6 by an act of Congress, to when Adams reduced the size from 6 to 5 in order to try and thwart Jefferson. He did this with an act of Congress. I am missing the part where it says how big the court is. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/58 "2019-04-01T22:25:30Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This is wrong at every level. > > Can the executive determine the number of seats in congress? > > Why can congress determine the number of seats in the Supreme Court? > > The checks and balances come in where congress can modify a law to comport with a judicial finding or they can impeach a sitting justice. There are lots of places where individual branches have autonomy. I already mentioned several of them - the executive branch gets to determine the priorities for enforcing legislation. The House has the power of the purse. But my comment was aimed at your general statement that “Congress does not have the right to limit another branch of government.” It does, and has. The whole point to the American governmental structure is that all branches have the right to limit other branches under certain circumstances. We just saw a good example of that - Trump wanted his wall, Congress stopped him, Trump vetoed, and Congress didn’t have the votes to overturn. But if they had, they could have very thoroughly stopped another branch of government from doing what it wanted. And Obama had his plans thwarted by the Supreme Court on many occasions as well. Back when the U.S. had a functioning budgetary process, it was extremely common for both the House and Senate to have to compromise in order to get a budget passed. Presidential budgets are routinely thwarted by the legislative branch. Hell, Trump himself has had executive orders shot down by the courts. The whole point to American governmental structures is to have each branch oversee and limit the other. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/59 "2019-04-01T22:47:47Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > But my comment was aimed at your general statement that “Congress does not have the right to limit another branch of government.” It does, and has. Sure. Limits are in the check and balances and spelled out in the constitution. Limits are _not_ in the ability of one branch of government to nerf another branch of government by limiting its size or via other means. It would be madness for the FFs to let one branch effectively control another branch of government. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2019, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873/60 "2019-04-01T22:59:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am missing the part where it says how big the court is. It doesn’t, that’s the point. Congress establishes the size. They do it through legislation. Any idea you have that the size could be increased without legislation is wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omnibus-supreme-court-packing-thread/831873.md?page=4)