Supreme Court

[techman05]

Can the Supreme Court hear a case against the expansion of their own body?

[DawgyNWindow]

Can the Supreme Court hear a case against the expansion of their own body?

Since they are a body based on Constitutional law, they'd have to say it's OK. Nothing in the Constitution sets the number of court members.

If they do it, say goodbye to checks and balances and some very ugly unintended consequences.

[techman05]

I figured. Our “leadership” has gone completely off the rails and everyone needs to be primaried.

[FriscoDog]

Dems packing the court is dangerous ground. What is our resident attorney's thoughts on this? He's been very quiet.

[johnnylightnin]

I figured. Our “leadership” has gone completely off the rails and everyone needs to be primaried.

The leader of the house said she won’t bring it to the floor.

It’ll have about the same impact as Cruz’s antitrust claims of MLB...just political theater.

[techman05]

The leader of the house said she won’t bring it to the floor.

It’ll have about the same impact as Cruz’s antitrust claims of MLB...just political theater.

I thought she said not until the commission rubber stamps it. Basically.

[johnnylightnin]

I thought she said not until the commission rubber stamps it. Basically.

Not exactly: https://apple.news/AA0moxPrBThGEKaRCfu1mvg

[dawg80]

I thought she said not until the commission rubber stamps it. Basically.

Pelosi has punted for now. But, the matter is not dead.

I have read some opinions, mostly "thinking out loud" type of rhetoric from pundits of instituting term limits for SC justices. A term of 18 years has been discussed. I think the Constitution would have to amended for that to happen. Well...I would be okay to listening to discussion, pro and con, about the idea, as long as term limits for Congress, both houses was included in that discussion.

So, focusing on the SC, would such term limits (18 years) be productive? Would it help placate those wishing to pack the court? And!! would it be made retroactive such that the current membership would be subject to said 18 year limit? If so, Thomas and Breyer would be gone and Roberts and Alito would be getting close.

Thoughts?



Oh, yeah, I realize if such a matter was actually taken up it would be many years before the changes could be ratified and go into effect. But, just "for fun" I mentioned what implementing 18-year term limits would do to the current court.

[johnnylightnin]

I’d much rather term limits for Congress.

[dawg80]

I’d much rather term limits for Congress.

Agreed.

[techman05]

I’d much rather term limits for Congress.

That is a no brainer for sure.

[glm47]

I’d much rather term limits for Congress.

I can certainly agree with you on that.

[TechDawgMc]

I agree that Congressional term limits are more important than the Supreme Court.

I do like the idea of an 18 year term on the Court. It would require an amendment. When the Constitution was written, a 50 year old starting at the court was probably not looking at more than about 15 years serving. People staying active into their 80s has made a life term much longer. Limited terms might take some of the gamesmanship out of selecting justices (though probably not much, sadly). I don't think it could be made retroactive, but I'll leave that to the lawyers in the group, and I'm not sure it should anyway.

[PawDawg]

Bad orange man wants term
limits for congress so it has to be a bad thing

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I’d much rather term limits for Congress.

ASAP