HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Let's say Congress passes...

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:34 PM

Let's say Congress passes a bill to expand the USSC, Biden signs it into law, then somebody sues.

The current Supreme Court decides to take the case.

What then?

29 replies, 823 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Let's say Congress passes a bill to expand the USSC, Biden signs it into law, then somebody sues. (Original post)
Goodheart Oct 18 OP
PTWB Oct 18 #1
maxrandb Oct 18 #20
Goodheart Oct 18 #2
Rstrstx Oct 18 #9
The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 18 #18
Goodheart Oct 18 #19
ProudMNDemocrat Oct 18 #3
EarlG Oct 18 #4
Goodheart Oct 18 #7
Goodheart Oct 18 #5
Salviati Oct 18 #6
Under The Radar Oct 18 #17
hlthe2b Oct 18 #8
Goodheart Oct 18 #10
hlthe2b Oct 18 #11
Goodheart Oct 18 #12
hlthe2b Oct 18 #13
Sherman A1 Oct 18 #14
Trumpocalypse Oct 18 #25
The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 18 #15
Goodheart Oct 18 #16
MineralMan Oct 18 #21
Salviati Oct 18 #22
patricia92243 Oct 18 #24
Blue_true Oct 18 #28
KWR65 Oct 18 #23
RichardRay Oct 18 #26
Blue_true Oct 18 #27
Turin_C3PO Oct 18 #29

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:36 PM

1. Nothing then.

The size of the Supreme Court is determined by legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PTWB (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:54 PM

20. Exactly

The Constitution limits what the Supreme Court can do. Folks seem to forget that the constitution also puts limits on the power of the judicial branch.

Weighing in on what congress does with the courts is not in their jurisdiction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:37 PM

2. Marbury v. Madison determined that the USSC can adjudge the constitutionality of any legislation.

And it's quite possible that these rancid fucks would protect themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:41 PM

9. Who would have standing?

Someone would have to show they have been adversely affected

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:50 PM

18. If they are true originalists they should overturn Marbury,

because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review; C.J. Marshall held that they did because somebody had to do it and it might as well be them. But if that power wasn't given the Supreme Court by the Constitution, a true originalist would say they don't have it - thus pretty much putting the Justices out of work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #18)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:53 PM

19. So true. But their hypocrisy exceeds their "originalism".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:38 PM

3. The Constitution does not determine the NUMBER of Justices.

Allowed to make up the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:39 PM

4. By the time the case gets to SCOTUS

Wouldnít the new justices have already been seated, and therefore would also get to rule on the case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:40 PM

7. We can hope. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:39 PM

5. That I know, but it wouldn't be the first time that justices vote their biases over the Constitution

The Supreme Court decides constitutionality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:40 PM

6. Then you start looking into impeaching justices for rank incompetence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salviati (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:49 PM

17. Impeach them for false testimony in their confirmation hearings.

The last two, Kavanah and Barrett have nothing perjured themselves. Perhaps the threat of impeachment will force them to resign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:40 PM

8. It falls to Congress to pass the law that determines the way in which SCOTUS is comprised.

The constitution lays that out. It would be hard to imagine an instance where SCOTUS would have the stated authority to weigh in. I suppose there could be some far out hypotheticals (e.g., restricting eligibility to one race), but these would be limited to areas where other areas of the constitution come into conflict (as in that example).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:43 PM

10. Here's the point: the Supreme Court is the last word on constitutionality. AND

After Barrett there are at least 5 biased fuckwads on that Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:44 PM

11. And Congress has the ability to impeach and remove. Check Mate


Anything at that level and beyond is civil strife level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:44 PM

12. Takes 67 Senators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #12)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:45 PM

13. Read the rest of my post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:46 PM

14. There is nothing unconstitutional about the expansion of the court

Congress can decide the size of the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #14)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:41 PM

25. FYI

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:46 PM

15. Nothing. Congress decides how many justices are on the court.

There have been nine since the Judiciary Act of 1867, and again in 1948. The Constitution doesn't specify a number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:47 PM

16. Already addressed. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 12:55 PM

21. Supreme Court Justices are Impeachable.

That is the check Congress has to balance the power of the SCOTUS.

The number of justices is controlled by Congress. That's in the Consitution. So, that's settled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:08 PM

22. What if Nancy Pelosi were to murder trump and pence and then pardon herself?

What then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salviati (Reply #22)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:19 PM

24. She would be a hero??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patricia92243 (Reply #24)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 02:27 PM

28. ........

Deserving of all the free Jenniís ice cream that she can possibly eat. She said that Jenniís is her favorite, coincidentally, it is my favorite also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:11 PM

23. To sue the person would have to have standing to sue.

Because the constitution does not set a maximum size of SCOTUS there is no violation of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 02:19 PM

26. Current court would uphold

The size of the court is *not* a Constitutional issue, itís a matter of simple statute. Even with Barrett aboard. Recent and probable regressive decisions turn largely on the issues of precedent and claims of judicial activism. If a clean bill passed both houses of Congress and the President signed it there wouldnít be much (or any) wiggle room.

Some folks may call that a naive view, but Iím not that far gone, yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 02:22 PM

27. The Supreme Court has no standing on that particular issue.

Expanding the Federal Courts is solely within the domain of the Legislative and Executive branches. Joe can simply point out that the Supreme Court has no constitutional standing on that issue, so he will ignore any decision that it hands out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 02:41 PM

29. No, they can't.

The reasons why has already been explained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread