Traveling isn’t an issue. The case load is the issue. The Court hears only a fraction of those cases seriously placed before it.
We differ on the topic of whether this is possible.
In my opinion, that is an argument for more layers of appeals courts, not for more justices at the top layer.
So you’d prevent appeals from going up to the SCOTUS? Because that’s what it sounds like. (If there are more appeals courts then presumably there’d be more appeals—and a still undersized Supreme Court that wouldn’t have the capacity to hear them.)
If you think things can’t get worse, the issue is your lack of imagination.
What do you think Advice and Consent of the Senate means?
Congress sets the number of Supreme Court justices, which you seem willing to acknowledge.
Then you should look harder.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Biden administration officials are working against the clock doling out billions in grants and taking other steps to try to preserve at least some of the outgoing president’s legacy before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January.
“Let’s make every day count,” President Joe Biden said in an address to the nation last week after Vice President Kamala Harris conceded defeat to Trump in the presidential race.
Trump has pledged to rescind unspent funds in Biden’s landmark climate and health care law and stop clean-energy development projects.
“There’s only one administration at a time,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told reporters at a news conference Thursday. “That’s true now, and it will also be true after January 20th. Our responsibility is to make good use of the funds that Congress has authorized for us and that we’re responsible for assigning and disbursing throughout the last three years.”
It’s like there’s a hurricane coming, and you’re complaining because Biden is battening the hatches instead of making quixotic recommendations that can’t possibly yield results. It’s not that he avoids making waves; it’s that he’s busy trying to protect what he can against the coming storm.
Why would Mike Johnson, who decides what will come to the floor of the House during the lame duck session, fast-track legislation to let Biden appoint four more justices? And @Lance_Turbo is absolutely right. Republicans would point to this as proof of a bipartisan recognition of the need to expand the court – which they will take up when they gain full control of government in eight weeks and Trump can appoint all the new justices.
This thread is bizarre.
Ha ha ha, 
Does trump even need any sort of sane, logical justification?
And did you note that several of us pointed out that the GOP currently controls the House? So it can’t happen.
Right.
No, since that will allow trump to do it.
Yep.
Exactly.
If it requires an act of Congress, how did FDR threaten to pack the Supreme Court to further the New Deal?
He attempted to do it through legislation. It failed to pass Congress which is why his plan was unsuccessful.
No, the threat caused Congress to let the New Deal go through.
You’ve got your history all wrong. The Democratic majorities in Congress passed most of his New Deal legislation, some of which was blocked by the Supreme Court. In response, his allies in Congress introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 to allow the President to appoint an additional justice for every member of the court over the age of 70 years. The bill had some supporters – notably the Senate Majority Leader, who died while the bill was still being debated.
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Totally inaccurate. Congress had already passed most of the New Deal, only to have the Supreme Court strike it down. However, for whatever reason, Justice Owen Roberts, who had voted with the conservative majority, switched sides. Chief Justice Hughes also voted with Roberts on several key cases.
In fact, FDR’s plan hurt him with Congress.
You misunderstand what you’re looking at. You are not looking at the Constitution—a document which establishes our laws. You are, instead, looking at the US Code, which describes our current laws. The piece of the Code you provide describes the current state of affairs of our Supreme Court. It does NOT establish a law governing the way the Supreme Court will be constituted for all time (as the Constitution does, unless it is Amended).
Several in the thread are making this same mistake. Several are demonstrating variants of the false belief that ‘the number of Justices is under the purview of Congress, and the President may respond to Congress’s decisions on this matter. Otherwise, this is no business of the President..’
This is completely mistaken and wrong.
Several posts here display this mistaken belief; a thread in Politics & Elections is a useful counter to misreading of the Constitution such as:
Congress does pass laws reflecting the current choice as to the number of Justices, but Congress is NOT given the Constitutional power to “set” the number. The number changes over time and Congress passes Judiciary Acts to update that number.
This is a bizarre argument. You said (and I quoted) “… end result being worse than things right now …”–implying that our situation now should be preserved, and if Biden calls for reconciliation of the numbers of Justices and Circuit Courts, it won’t be preserved. I disagree. I don’t go for your claim that we’re okay now, and should leave well enough alone, as you essentially argue in post 25. Instead, I believe that we are NOT in a good situation now.
You believe that “trying and failing would make things worse”—and I don’t. That’s nothing to do with lack of imagination. That’s a difference of opinion on the state of things now.
Of course he does not. How many times over past years have we seen people on the left warning ‘we mustn’t do X because that will enable Trump to do [whatever horrible thing]!!!1!!!’ Saying Biden shouldn’t raise the reasonable question of reconciling the number of Justices with the number of Circuit Courts, because that would lead Trump to do ‘something,’ falls well within this tired category of useless pearl-clutching.
As for Biden and his team trying to get previously-allocated funds actually distributed to their intended recipients, @nelliebly —that’s great. I’m glad it’s happening. Thank you for the information.
I’m not clear on why you think ‘charging his team to get funds distributed’ preludes Biden from calling for reconciliation of the numbers of Justices with Courts, though. Why do you think the one makes the other impossible, or even hard to do? If the grants already exist, what, exactly, would be taking up Biden’s time?
Which - and hear me out - would need to be changed by Congress, because the President does not have the power to change, repeal, or ignore laws. (The last statement is a bit glib, but choosing not to enforce a criminal law is procedurally quite different than ignoring this law would be.)
blink
Is it your mental model that the court is recomposed before Congress passes a law resizing it, to “recognize” the new appointments?
Can you provide any evidence that this is how the process worked in the past?
I also believe that we are not in a good situation now. I also believe that making things worse is bad.
President Biden should use the time he has left to try to improve things rather than doing things that would definitely make things worse (like your plan).
You directly quoted, “… end result being worse than things right now …,” from my post. Those ellipses are yours. That’s the complete quote.
You responded, “We differ on the topic of whether this is possible.”
It sure does seem that you are saying that it’s not possible for things to be worse than right now. It’s definitely possible. It’s a certainty.
Yes; as I posted:
The idea that has set in that the number of Justices is no business of Biden’s (or of any President) and that this is entirely up to Congress, is what is wrong and mistaken. Procedurally, yes, Congress has passed various Judiciary Acts over the years that showed the change in the number of Justices. That is not the same thing as the (false) notion that Congress “sets” the number. They have to agree to what the President decides and if they disagree, they don’t pass a new Judiciary Act.
No.