Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it time to increase the size of the supreme court?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:53 PM
Original message
Is it time to increase the size of the supreme court?
I'd love to see the right wing influence diluted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Let's see who gets replaced by whom first
A larger court could be unwieldy, but I would go in that direction to get a more balanced court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I guess I was pretty confident in Obama's ability
to pick jurists.

Obviously getting the law changed and the justices through the Senate will be problematic.
But I'm thinking this might (after Franken is seated) be the maximum opportunity.
THe country loves Obama and thinks the the GOP is incompetent and obstructive.
And the average Joe could be convinced that more justices are needed now than 100 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dubeskin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Remember what happened last time we thought about increasing
the size of the court with FDR?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I thought FDR tried to do it to get even with the supreme court
not declaring some parts of his new deal unconstitutional.

Obviously retaliating against the supreme court is wrong.
However strengthening the supreme court by increasing its diversity and expertise and vigor isn't wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Pretty damn fine hairsplit there
The precedent is clear, the president does not get to pack the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. That was because FDR tried to do it without Congress' approval.
As it turns out, the President can't change the size of the court unilaterally, but Congress can and has passed legislation changing the number of justices in the SCOTUS.

Of course, with all the DINOs infesting our ranks, that ain't gonna happen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iris27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not gonna happen - tried in FDR's day, declared unconstitutional n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. no its not unconstitutional
Congress controls the size of the supreme court. Its not dictated by the Constitution. Its changed size a half-dozen times already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Optical.Catalyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. We control Congress right now. It is time to bring balance back to the Supreme court
Another three members would be appropriate. The court has been packed in favor of the right wing conservatives since 1990. The court is the last stand for the people, and should be progressive enough take the people's side over the corporate industrialists.
Big money can buy Congressmen. Big money can influence the President. The Court should be grounded on the side of the rank and file citizen.

Three more progressive Jurists appointed by President Obama would bring the Supreme Court back around to our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. It Has Been Done Before, Ma'am
The court commenced with a roster of seven justices, and has had as many as ten during its career. The number was fixed at nine by Act of Congress shortly after the Civil War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. yes, it has
The growth in law and lawsuits has probably increased 100-fold since then.
If that law is revisited, recusals for conflict of interest should be mandated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. It Is Also Worth Noting, Ma'am
That after the 'court-packing' proposal failed, nonetheless the Court began to rule in a much more reasonable manner regarding New Deal legislation....

"You don't have to shoot the cow, but sometimes you have to let it know it can be shot."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. thank you for another reason why it should be considered
Can you imagine the Roberts Court infamy in GOP circles if it starts making liberal decisions?
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Ten was a curious choice.
I understand that the reason was because they wanted to match the number of judicial courts as the country grew, but the possibility of a 5/5 split on major issues would seem to be a serious concern. Just imagine our current court with an extra left-leaning member.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. That Was During The Civil War Itself, Sir
Detailed recollection fails me at the moment, but the number may have been notional, as some appointed members may not have been sitting actively owing to, shall we say, a different allegiance....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Agreed.
Don't really understand why they would try to match to the number of judicial courts.
Its not as if the Supreme's have direct responsibility for individual courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. If Emperor Roosevelt couldn't do it, Obama certainly can't. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
16. That probably would not increase the nbr of cases heard each term that IMO is a serious problem. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
19. No chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC