In the SCOTUS, "5-4" is becoming the new law of the land

[ck4829]

Thursday's decision to strike down restrictions on corporate campaign spending more than 60 years old was the third time in nine days that the court divided 5-4, with liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. The other cases involved an appeal from a death row inmate in Georgia and the prospect of broadcasting a gay marriage trial in California.

As in dozens of earlier cases, Kennedy was in the majority each time. He was the author of the campaign finance decision.

The rulings demonstrate the extent to which ideology — not fidelity to precedent or a particular interpretation of the Constitution — is the driving force on the court.

The addition of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, replacing Justice David Souter, seems to have changed nothing in this regard. Indeed, it would have been shocking if President Barack Obama's first high court nominee immediately began to line up with the court's conservatives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_conservatives_vs_liberals

Our Constitution and the rule of law basically hangs in the balance with just one vote. Maybe it's time to consider adding another seat to the Supreme Court.

[KharmaTrain]

1. Screwing With The Constitution Is A Dangerous Thing...

Right now with our dysfunctional Senate, it's doubtful you'd get 67 votes to ammend...if FDR couldn't do it with a larger majority, what makes you think it could happen now?

Also, what's the benefit of having an even number on the court? Who would break a deadlock?

The balance that works against us now can shift back in our favor should one of the corporate 5 step down...which could happen in Kennedy and Scalia's case in a few years. The "charm" of the court is it can revisit previous decissions and surely with a 5-4 liberal/moderate lean, it would repeal or reverse the most heinous parts of this travesty.

[Bill McBlueState]

3. what would require screwing with the Constitution? n/t

[KharmaTrain]

4. Adding A Justice...

This would require ammending the constitution. The size of the court was specified...to change it would require a 2/3rds vote. Again...FDR tried in the 30's...one of his biggest failures.

[Joe Bacon]

5. There is nothing in the Constitution locking in the number of justices

There is nothing in the Constitution that locks in 9 members. Originally there were six members under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

I see nothing wrong with increasing the size of the court from 9 to 15.

[pscot]

6. It would not require amending the Constitution

Article three establishes the court:

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

It says nothing about the number of judges. That numbe is fixed by act of Congress. I believe it was last changed in the 1860's.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. 2000 elections? 2012 elections?

[Robb]

7. I distinctly remember when it was in vogue at DU

...to refer to GWB as "5-4."

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. I fear 2012

[qazplm]

8. very bad optics

and we'd never get it passed in the Senate.

[ck4829]

9. It certainly can't be done today

Maybe over a process of several years though.