SCOTUS expanded in 1869 from 7 to 9 to match circuits. We now have 13 circuits.

[deminks]

Link to tweet

SCOTUS was last expanded in 1869 from 7 to 9 justices to match the # of federal circuits. We now have 13 federal circuits. Sooooo.......

(end snip)

VOTE. Get it done.

[AlexSFCA]

1. great info, we need to start building solid arguments and educating electorate

to combat court packing argument

[BigmanPigman]

2. Correct new term "rebalancing the court".

The GOP "packed" it.

[AlexSFCA]

3. I prefer court reform

[BigmanPigman]

6. That works too.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

4. Then increase the SCOTUS to 13...

And tell Moscow Mitch and Lady G to go fuck themselves.

There are new sheriffs in the chamber.

[roamer65]

5. 13 is what I have advocated.

Perfect!

[C Moon]

7. Lucky 13!!

[Hekate]

8. Now there's a thought. As to the rest, when they say "pack," we say "restore balance." Practice...

...saying it: “Restore balance to the Courts.”

[MyMission]

9. Seems like it's time to expand the court again

And also to increase and appoint federal judges to balance the glut installed by turtle.
13 is a good number for scotus. Makes sense. Hope it happens.

[cstanleytech]

10. 13 circuits as well as 13 founding states so the number 13 makes perfect sense and if we pack the

court like the Republicans did then we can bring balance back though the final spot might be best served by a moderate that does not lean to far because the whole goal is to bring the court back into balance.

[UCmeNdc]

11. McConnell said there is nothing you can do about it

[The Magistrate]

12. He Is Wrong, Sir

Whether what can be done will be done is a separate question.

Increasing the number of justices is merely one item.

The court could be stripped by statute of any appellate jurisdiction. Apart from disputes between branches of the Federal government, and between a state government and the Federal, no jurisdiction is given the Supreme Court by the Constitution, and it is explicitly stated its appellate authority is what Congress says it is.

The court's budget could be zeroed out, the salaries of its members reduced to an insulting nickel a year. No money whatever for clerks, for other functionaries.

The Executive can simply disregard court decisions --- these do not enforce themselves.

All these things not only are possible under the Constitution, they are things of a nature the founders thought proper uses of Legislative and Executive authority to check corrupt practice.


"What is not forbidden is required."

[lamp_shade]

13. When I read that "only Congress can change"... I assume that Congress means

BOTH House and Senate. I hope I'm right. For instance, stripping the court of appellate jurisdiction. Would the House get to vote on such a move?

[Buckeyeblue]

14. Yes. Both chambers of congress.

It's just a law. The Constitution does provide specifics to size, so a law approved by the Senate and House and signed the the president.

[The Magistrate]

16. House And Senate Both, Ma'am

And the President would have to sign the bill when it had passed both chambers.

[lamp_shade]

20. Thanks, Magistrate. Are you saying he couldn't veto it?

[The Magistrate]

21. Not Sure What You Mean, Ma'am

A President can veto, and that can be set aside by a super-majority of both House and Senate.

If the election returns a Democratic majority in both House and Senate, Mr. Biden will be President. The cheap thug will be out of the picture (and may be on trial for felonies).

If Mr. Biden should choose to veto necessary measures to redeem the Supreme Court from the kangaroo panel McConnell and his minions have made of it, he will find himself a good deal less popular with the Party faithful than he is now....

[lamp_shade]

22. Silly me! I hadn't considered that Joe would be the Prez. I'm getting old.

[The Magistrate]

23. We Are All a Bit Distracted, Ma'am

I have not felt quite so tense as this week since the days of my adventurous youth....

[dalton99a]

17. +1.

[octoberlib]

15. K&R !

[dalton99a]

18. It Must Be Done - Or Live Under Their Rule Forever

[SmartVoter22]

19. Pack the lower federal courts

Instead of adding seats to SCOTUS, add 3 seats to each of the 13 federal courts. This could create a preemptive move that could shift rulings before they get to SCOTUS.

Pack the federal appellate courts, but at the level just below SCOTUS, where most cases will receive the final decision or ruling.

Just a thought.

[wryter2000]

24. Good idea

Glen Kirschner has been recommending this. The lower courts need help.

I honestly think we could do both, though.