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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.