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

[Fresh_Start]

I'd love to see the right wing influence diluted

[NV Whino]

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.

[Fresh_Start]

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.

[dubeskin]

2. Remember what happened last time we thought about increasing

the size of the court with FDR?

[Fresh_Start]

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.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Pretty damn fine hairsplit there

The precedent is clear, the president does not get to pack the court.

[backscatter712]

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...

[iris27]

3. Not gonna happen - tried in FDR's day, declared unconstitutional n/t

[Fresh_Start]

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.

[Optical.Catalyst]

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.

[The Magistrate]

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.

[Fresh_Start]

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

[The Magistrate]

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."

[Fresh_Start]

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

[TwilightZone]

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.

[The Magistrate]

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....

[Fresh_Start]

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.

[Occam Bandage]

13. If Emperor Roosevelt couldn't do it, Obama certainly can't. nt

[jody]

16. That probably would not increase the nbr of cases heard each term that IMO is a serious problem. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

19. No chance.