Maybe 11 Supreme court Justices in our future ?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Even though you’re using the word precedent incorrectly .

Sure.

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.

And how would they rule on it unfavorably considering it occurred numerous times before? What is the Constitutional challenge? Lay it out and be detailed.

anyone who thinks this will " work " is a retard .

welcome to merkin politics

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.

Then why would you need to challenge the Constitution in court?

If history is any indication, IF a Democrat controlled Congress (Senate) increases SCOTUS justices, it will come back to bite them in the ass big time...you know, like when they changed 60 votes to pass something to a simple majority...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


The supreme court interprets the constitution and The Supreme Court was mentioned in article 3 section 1 .

They could review the case much like they’ve done with the second amendment which was long-standing .

Machine guns, fighter planes and atomic bomb’s weren’t mentioned in the second amendment. But they interpreted the Second Amendment and excluded them from private possession .

I can’t make it much simpler than that. Now you challenge my opinion so I’m done defending it. It’s up to you to prove I was wrong.

Please lay it out in detail .

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: 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.

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.

Yea but they're all crazy.

If we go down this road, the SCOTUS will end up larger than Congress. Gridlock will be so bad we'll never get a ruling ever again.

originally posted by: toms54
If we go down this road, the SCOTUS will end up larger than Congress.

It could, or they can make it smaller than it is now. It wouldn't be the first time Congress has legally changed the composition of the Court.

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.

Saying someone doesn't have first amendment rights is a direct challenge to the constitution.

Attention has been payed.

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: highvein
[
Saying someone doesn't have first amendment rights is a direct challenge to the constitution.

And is still not what we are discussing.

So we are not talking about challenging the constitution in court. Okay.

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.

Just like last time you just inadvertently agreed with me. 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.

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 .

I guess that’s why you have done a 180 on your position. You didn’t know any of this going in.

Legal action on what? The setting of the number of Justices?

That was your first quote at that point you had no idea that Supreme Court could challenge the law change .

How do you challenge the Constitution in court?

Hmmmm? No mention of the Judiciary act of 1789 there either . ( sorry I had to get that dig in because of the aggressiveness of your last post )

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?

As I explained and as you confirmed they can be challenged constitutionally.


I’m not sure if you’re carrying a grudge or just doing a soft troll . But we should probably put both of our attitudes to bed.

Because I’m willing to bet nobody else is enjoying us .


If we could start having pleasant conversations we could probably get a lot done .

Truce?

Take care

originally posted by: highvein
So we are not talking about challenging the constitution in court. Okay.

No, we're not actually.

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.

And? I'm still waiting on the merits of your challenge. You seem to have an issue putting them down for us to see. Explain, if you are capable, how you legally challenge 200+ years of precedent in regards the Congress determining the number and length of service of the Supreme Court Justices. They can change it, the President it powerless. Someone who truly understood how our government's checks and balances functioned would understand this.

Here’s my original position.

And my two line reply along with the questions it contained was fairly simple. And then again asking you 'how do you challenge the Consitution' went un-naswered. You type a lot, but say very little.

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?

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.

originally posted by: watchandwait410
Don't forget a 10 year limit too!

Oh no. They wouldn't do that. If the 'crats get the power to seat two more justices, they'll want them for life because they have the power to seat them and they'll seat more justices in the mold of jurisprudence they prefer and they'll do it never, ever thinking for one second that expanding the court will ever come back to bite them in the butt ... just like when Harry Reid removed the rule that effectively prevents them from blocking some of these appointments now. They never thought it would come back to bite them. They only thought about what they were getting right at that time.

a reply to: 727Sky

Why don't these career politicians understand that term limits would fix everything?

Oh, wait, I answered my own question within my own question.

Either party would still need both the House and the Senate and I
assume the Presidents signature to make the bill law.
The democrats at the moment have control of none of them.
It would be two years minimum before they could even start
such a process.

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.

It's actually in the Judicial Act of 1789 which I posted earlier.

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.

No disagreeing with that, what I am disagreeing with is there is no Constitutional basis for it to be taken to the Supreme Court if Congress decides to change the number of Justices.