It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Fallingdown
Even though you’re using the word precedent incorrectly .
The previous number of judges is what the supreme court could rule on versus constitutionality of the change in law increasing the number of judges.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: toms54
I thought congress set the number of supreme court judges.
They do, which is the point I'm making.
originally posted by: Fallingdown
Please lay it out in detail .
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: toms54
Then why would you need to challenge the Constitution in court?
Ask the other people, it's their argument that you can challenge this aspect of our government.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: highvein
None of those are a challenge TO the Constitution, they are a challenge to the legality of statutes passed that violate the Constitution.
Pay attention.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: highvein
[
Saying someone doesn't have first amendment rights is a direct challenge to the constitution.
And is still not what we are discussing.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Fallingdown
Please lay it out in detail .
I don't have to, if you actually knew something about the subject you'd have known that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was already challenged before the Supreme Court and the portion of it they found un-Constitutional was struck down.
Maybe you can get them to look at your opinion on the matter.
I think there’s two things that the Democrats haven’t considered.
Number one is a four letter word to them VETO!
The second one is that in the event a Democratic Congress overrides the veto or the presidency changes hands .
There would be legal action. Guess who it would end up in front of ?
SCOTUS would be ruling on a constitutional issue and would have no conflict of interest.
This is just another red herring to dangle in front of their angry and foaming base. Just like their cries for impeachment which will never happen .
The Democrats are just building their base up knowing they will get angrier ( if that’s possible ) when they are let down .
Legal action on what? The setting of the number of Justices?
How do you challenge the Constitution in court?
The setting of the numbers of Justices and their terms is a provision given to Congress and has been exercised numerous times over the country's history. How do you challenge something with solid legal precedent?
originally posted by: Fallingdown
The challenge to the judiciary act of 1789 proves my point about the supreme court powers. The case can go before the Supreme Court.
Here’s my original position.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Fallingdown
You can challenge a federal law on a constitutional or other basis.Dude they just did it in May .
The setting of the numbers of Justices and their terms is a provision given to Congress and has been exercised numerous times over the country's history. How do you challenge something with solid legal precedent?
originally posted by: watchandwait410
Don't forget a 10 year limit too!
originally posted by: dragonridr
Yes congress sets the number of judges per the constitution. Started out with 6 then went to 7. Well from 7 went to 9 then 10 then back down to 9. As they removed a justice 1866.
Since then it has been 9 and unlikely to change since it would require 2/3rds vote and that would never happen. Yes the president could veto.