Right, but that wasn’t my question.
If they are not doing it right now, as we speak, what reason is there to believe they might do it in 2025?
They don’t have all three branches, so they can’t pack the court. At least one Democrat in Congress is starting the process of a Constitutional amendment.
Is that the case? I thought the president could appoint whatever number he’d like (the Constitution doesn’t specify) and the Senate provides advice and consent (if they’re in the mood).
There may be processes in place that are followed by tradition, but my read of the Constitution’s appointment clause suggests it doesn’t require anything more.
They would definitely be in the mood…but not to consent.
The size of the Supreme Court is set by Congressional statute, and has been nine since around 1870. It varied from 5 to 10 before that.
Ulysses Grant was allowed to add two to undo a ruling about paper money.
Rep Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas, is panicking:
Is this the first crack in the dam?
He’s the first to come out publicly. There are anonymous Democrats being reported but no idea if they are Congresspeople or not.
Thanks. I wonder if that law would pass constitutional muster, since the Constitution itself sets no such limit?
Democrats in Texas are already in panic mode. Did he happen to mention who the replacement should be?
All 4 of them?
I get that this is a joke, but given that there are more Democrats in Texas than any other state in the nation (aside from California), and Biden only lost to Trump in Texas in 2020 by a margin of 5.6%, what Texas Democrats think is very relevant, given that the state is purple these days and not red. In fact, with a few more percentage points to the left, Texas would be sort of a representative sample state of America overall.
full text of Article III
Section 1
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.
Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
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.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
What I am failing to see in there is a description of how the supreme Court is supposed to do what it is supposed to do. Congress could enact a statute that says precedent-setting supreme Court rulings must be issued by a grand jury of citizens, and the current SCotUS could not revoke that statute because it would not be unconstitutional. They could impose all manner requirements on the court without going out of bounds.
I believe it is, but then I believe that upcoming polls will show that Congressional Democrats’ numbers are being negatively affected by the debate debacle. And as many have said, if it’s clear that Biden is dragging down Dem tickets, then many in Congress will call for him to step down.
Recall that BEFORE the debate, Biden was performing worse than Democrats in Senate races in those battleground states holding Senate races:
SENATE races: … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Biden v.Trump:
WISCONSIN: 6-26: Baldwin over Hovde (R) by +7 … … … …6-26: tie
ARIZONA: 6-21: Gallego over Lake (R) by +1 … … … … …6-21: T +6
NEVADA: 6-20: Rosen over Brown (R) by +12 … … … … …6-25: T +3
MICHIGAN: 6-20: Slotkin over Rogers (R) by +4 … … … … 6-21 to 26: T +4
PENNSYLVANIA: 6-20: Casey over McCormick (R) by +6 … 6-13 to 18: T+2
Again: that was the situation before the debate. It won’t have improved. Here’s how Biden is doing in blue New Hampshire:
Anyone who opposes Trump should be concerned about this. And some of those concerned are members of Congress–for obvious reasons. We’ll be hearing from more of them.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4750341-trump-leads-biden-new-hampshire/
Yes, it is a joke.
No Democrat has won a statewide race in Texas since 1994 when Bob Bullock was elected Lt. Governor. That’s 30 years in the desert. Call it a purple state if you wish but to me it is very clearly red and will be so for quite a while.
I have not seen the members of this board freak-out so much since the days of, Bush Lied, Bush Lied! A bit of nostalgia.
The reality is that if Trump is elected again, nothing in your daily life will change, except maybe your blood pressure.
Unless you’re a woman, gay, an immigrant, “foreign looking,” Muslim, etc.
The stated rationale was to allow a debate before voting starts. Seeing as how this debate was before even the conventions, that seems… insuffient to explain the choice.
While there may have been hope Trump would stumble, Biden was facing scrutiny and questions about his mental fitness to go four more years. Not just from Republican weasels.
This debate was seen as a way to highlight that Biden is still sharp and capable, to put to rest internal concerns -not silence the jakals on Fox.
It’s not just me saying this. Here’s an article -
Regardless of whether it was a stated goal, it most definitely was an important reason. Expecting to win contrasting Biden vs Trump only works if your candidate is the one in charge of his faculties. We know Trump is only marginally in control of his - he seemed the same as usual.
Ridiculous. Magats won’t like any other Dem VP better. There might be few conservatives that despise Trump but also wish Old Biden had someone else more “conventional” to step in when he “unevitably steps down”, but I think those margins are much slimmer than the voting block Biden is trying to retain and would certainly lose if “he boots Harris off the ticket”, now that “it’s even more likely his VP will get to finish his term.”
To think the first elected Woman VP who is also Black and Asian should bow out to make room for another old white man? Might as well tell the party, “Hey, Black women aren’t good enough now that we might actually need her.”
History shows that VP’s don’t get much of an incumbent boost.
Great ideas.
I do wonder what would happen if certain Supreme Court Justices were awakened in the middle of the night by a SEAL Team who don’t shoot them, but state, “President Biden sent me on an Official Act to ask you if you thoroughly considered the ramifications of your decision. Perhaps you should reconsider what it means for a President to have immunity, and how that power could be abused.”
Texas is growing Democrats, it’s just the state is gerrymandered to hell to keep them in check. Half of Denton County was split off with counties up to Amarillo to dilute the liberal concentration here. That’s like 6 other counties, because that’s the population divide.
So Texas simultaneously is purple and Democrats can’t get elected. Which makes us a pretty good example of where the country is headed under the Republicans.
Now that’s magical thinking. We’ve already seen a changes in our daily lives from Trump’s first term. Like access to abortion, even in life threatening circumstances or for preteen girls. Access to birth control is under threat.
Trump had one term to learn how he could be a dictator. This time he won’t be starting with training wheels.
“Sure, he tried to violently overthrow the government, but don’t panic!”
At first.
We changed quite a lot over 2016–2020 because of Trump’s actions, or, more often, lack thereof. I’m not living in the US, so I can’t say how daily life changed—in part because the pandemic kind of overshadowed everything. I’d actually be quite interested in hearing (in another thread, obv.) the actual daily life effects of Trump’s Reign of Mismanagement.