Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: Time to Increase Number of Supreme Court Justices
7/5/12 | privatedrive

Posted on 07/05/2012 10:03:08 AM PDT by privatedrive

The Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court; that decision is left to Congress. I submit that now is the time to increase that number to at least 15. Clearly the current makeup of the SC concentrates too much power to one individual (formerly Kennedy, now Roberts).

In 1861, Congress passed a law fixing the number of SC Justices at 9. The original U.S. Supreme Court had only six Justices; that number has changed several times over the years.

1.Judiciary Act of 1789: Court size 6 2.Judiciary Act of 1801: Court size, 5 3.Repeal Act of 1802: Court size, 6 4.Seventh Circuit Act of 1807: Court size, 7 5.Judiciary Act of 1837: Court size, 9 6.Tenth Circuit Act of 1863: Court size, 10 7.Judicial Circuit Act of 1866: Court size, 7 8.Habeas Corpus Act of 1867: Court size, 8 9.Judiciary Act of 1869: Court size, 9

I believe that now is a good time to increase the number, and thereby reduce the chances of one justice deciding the interpretation of law based on outside influences.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: constitution; courtpacking; fdrwannabe; hellno; law; roberts; supremecourt; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

1 posted on 07/05/2012 10:03:17 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

I totally disagree with this if Obama has anything to do with appointing them.


2 posted on 07/05/2012 10:06:05 AM PDT by RC2 (Buy American and support the Wounded Warrior Project whenever possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

That you Mr.Roosevelt? Thought you was dead.


3 posted on 07/05/2012 10:08:51 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

effective 1/20/13


4 posted on 07/05/2012 10:08:56 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

>>Time to Increase Number of Supreme Court Justices<<

That’s a dandy idea. Can this really happen? If so, I’ll be writing my reps and senator.


5 posted on 07/05/2012 10:08:56 AM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

GOOD! THATS BRILLIANT!! Letsdo it right now like You suggest so that Obama gets to appoint 6 more Terrorists to the Bench before he leaves! BRILLIANT!!


6 posted on 07/05/2012 10:11:16 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot (May GOD SAVE OUR AMERICA from ALLAH and his Prophet, HUSSEIN OBAMA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

"I like your idea!

7 posted on 07/05/2012 10:12:43 AM PDT by Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary; privatedrive; RC2; servantboy777; True Republican Patriot

FGS! Has FR been taken over by infants?

Privatedrive, Google “Court Packing” after you get your beeber out of the shower.


8 posted on 07/05/2012 10:14:48 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Why, pray tell, do You think 1/20/13 will be any different than 1/19/13??? With all the so called Conservative here saying they will NOT VOTE for ROMNEY and will merely vote the rest of the ticket, sounds like we are punching the ticket for four more years of the OBAMANATION and his band of Terrorists!


9 posted on 07/05/2012 10:15:31 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot (May GOD SAVE OUR AMERICA from ALLAH and his Prophet, HUSSEIN OBAMA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Totally disagree. If you add more justices, they’ll just vote based on coalitions. The outcomes will be the same.


10 posted on 07/05/2012 10:15:45 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

There are already too many idiots on the public dole writing irrelevant side opinions.


11 posted on 07/05/2012 10:15:52 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: True Republican Patriot

Well obviously it wouldn’t take effect until after the election.

As of today, we’re screwed. We now have 5 progressive liberals (the most powerful of whom is a traitor), and they are WRITING law to suit their ideology. I’m looking for some way out of this Hell.

Or perhaps you prefer the status quo?


12 posted on 07/05/2012 10:17:18 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

You get out of it, by electing conservatives that appoint conservative Judges.


13 posted on 07/05/2012 10:19:47 AM PDT by justice14 ("stand up defend or lay down and die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Infants will be those who are whining when their first and second amendment rights are gone. Monny! They took my thingies! Enjoy the company.


14 posted on 07/05/2012 10:21:20 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: justice14

Judging by the historical record, apparently that’s very hard to do.


15 posted on 07/05/2012 10:21:29 AM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

WOW! Sounds to me we have a New Deal Progressive here trying to overturn any chance of ever blocking the Progressives, Communists and others Hell bent on destroying America!


16 posted on 07/05/2012 10:21:43 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot (May GOD SAVE OUR AMERICA from ALLAH and his Prophet, HUSSEIN OBAMA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

No, it is time to abolish the SCOTUS.

They have failed in their duty to protect the constitution, and rewarding them by increasing the number of justices is STUPID.

If they refuse to do their duty, then their is no reason for it to exist, beyond that, I will never obey anything it decides again, so what really is the point of it existing?


17 posted on 07/05/2012 10:22:19 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

We don’t need for justices. We need a super-majority of strict constructionists. I would say 7 would be the minimum — or even 8. That way when one or two go wobbly, the whole nation doesn’t have to pay the price. No More John Roberts! No More Souters!


18 posted on 07/05/2012 10:23:43 AM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

We don’t need MORE justices. We need a super-majority of strict constructionists. I would say 7 would be the minimum — or even 8. That way when one or two go wobbly, the whole nation doesn’t have to pay the price. No More John Roberts! No More Souters!


19 posted on 07/05/2012 10:23:55 AM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

No!


20 posted on 07/05/2012 10:24:57 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

You might be opening a can of worms we’d rather keep shut. Didn’t FDR look at trying such a thing when he couldn’t get his socialist agenda through the courts?

I’m a little surprised 0bama hasn’t tried it already.


21 posted on 07/05/2012 10:25:23 AM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

“That you Mr.Roosevelt? Thought you was dead.”

There’s a difference, in that he wanted to pack the court to stop it from enforcing the Constitution. This guy apparently thinks it can help restore the Constitution. Probably at best it would result in extra Robertses strengthening the liberal faction.


22 posted on 07/05/2012 10:26:04 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive; sam_paine

Just Google “Court Packing” like Sam_Paine asked You to do before You throw a rock at me!


23 posted on 07/05/2012 10:26:25 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot (May GOD SAVE OUR AMERICA from ALLAH and his Prophet, HUSSEIN OBAMA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

The justices need to be term limited with no re-appointment possible. Ten year terms. The court is so politicized that even direct elections would be preferable to the current system. I also like the idea of Mark Levin that the congress could overturn a SC decision by a 2/3 margin in both Houses.


24 posted on 07/05/2012 10:26:50 AM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est; zero sera dans l'enfer bientot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive; RC2
I totally disagree with this if Obama OR ROMNEY has anything to do with appointing them.
25 posted on 07/05/2012 10:28:19 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

No Term Limits!!!! Or Judicial Review by the Senate and House. When the SCOTUS judge becomes a problem you remove them. By a 2/3 vote!!!


26 posted on 07/05/2012 10:28:45 AM PDT by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

All is know is: The way things stand now is unacceptable. SC has stolen legislative power from Congress, pure and simple. The major decisions that confront our great nation are NOW in the hands of unelected, progressive ideologues. 1st amendment, 2nd amendment - nice knowin ya.

Perhaps increasing the SC number would lessen our risk; perhaps not. I’m just postulating an idea that might help Congress recapture some of their newly stolen power. “We the People” have had our b@lls cut off by SCROTUS. We need to get them back.


27 posted on 07/05/2012 10:36:01 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

If we have our balls cut off by the Scrotus, maybe that will bring the solution that much sooner.

We are trying to put a foundation under a rotting house. You get to a point where restoration isn’t feasible.


28 posted on 07/05/2012 10:39:43 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

AKA roosevelt........no thanks


29 posted on 07/05/2012 10:42:12 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
Didn’t FDR look at trying such a thing when he couldn’t get his socialist agenda through the courts?
I’m a little surprised 0bama hasn’t tried it already.

Why would he? Unlike FDR, he CAN get his socialist agenda through the court.

30 posted on 07/05/2012 10:42:25 AM PDT by mwilli20 (BO. Making communists proud all over the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
FGS! Has FR been taken over by infants?

Evidently. Between those calling for Roberts impeachment to the idea we need to revive FDR's infamous court packing scheme which was a direct result of his having lost initial New Deals cases...

It's at best bothersome. At worst it shows how, even on FR, too many are devoid of the most even basic U.S. History or civics understanding.

31 posted on 07/05/2012 10:56:27 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Why not just admit that the USSC has become nothing more than a glorified legislature?

In doing so we’d be admitting that one of the branches of government is worthless and the Constitution is therefore invalid, but if we’re going to go to mob rule anyway we might as well skip the niceties and get it over with.


32 posted on 07/05/2012 10:56:44 AM PDT by gzzimlich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh
The justices need to be term limited with no re-appointment possible. Ten year terms. The court is so politicized that even direct elections would be preferable to the current system. I also like the idea of Mark Levin that the congress could overturn a SC decision by a 2/3 margin in both Houses.

Terrible idea. That would effectively mean that Congress could amend the Constitution by a 2/3 majority, without the states. Also, could Congress also overturn lower court decisions?

33 posted on 07/05/2012 10:56:44 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KoRn; All
FDR’s Infamous Court-Packing Scheme
34 posted on 07/05/2012 10:57:54 AM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Can’t increase the number of justices.
FDR tried to add an additional 6 in 1939 and Congress said NO.


35 posted on 07/05/2012 10:57:54 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (Repeal Obamacare, the CITIZENSHIP TAX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

They have encroached on States’ rights too, starting decades ago.


36 posted on 07/05/2012 11:00:19 AM PDT by PghBaldy (I eagerly await the next news about the struggles of Elizabeth Sacheen Littlefeather Warren.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

So it cant be done because Congress said no in 1939? Hmmm.


37 posted on 07/05/2012 11:24:52 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

So it cant be done because Congress said no in 1939? Hmmm.


38 posted on 07/05/2012 11:25:11 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

I say drop the number of justices to four.


39 posted on 07/05/2012 11:27:27 AM PDT by Iron Munro (John Adams: 'Two ways to enslave a country. One is by the sword, the other is by debt')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Congress said “no” in 1939 because FDR was trying to pack the courts by adding 6 more Justices in his favor. If you wanted to add 6 Justices today it will be viewed in the same manner and should suffer the same fate.

Changing the number of Justices on the SCOTUS can be done and has been done in the past. What the folks are saying is that Congress isn’t going to allow any POTUS to increase the number of justices by say “6” at once. That’s way too much power granted to the POTUS at once to try and pack the SCOTUS, even with Congress voting on appointees.

I agree with this position, no matter if it’s “our President” or “their President”. If you want to have 15 justices serving on the SCOTUS, then it should occur gradually.


40 posted on 07/05/2012 11:41:06 AM PDT by Mr Fuji
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

I say we just trim it down to the 4 that understand the job they where tapped to do.


41 posted on 07/05/2012 11:53:27 AM PDT by cableguymn (For the first time in my life. I fear my country's government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Fuji

how does increasing the number of justices increase the court’s power? I would argue that it lessons each justice’s power.


42 posted on 07/05/2012 12:05:55 PM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Well, right now the justices can amend the Constitution every session and the justices always have the last word.

Perhaps, the state legislatures could overturn supreme court decisions by 2/3 or 3/4 vote w/o Congress.


43 posted on 07/05/2012 12:12:21 PM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est; zero sera dans l'enfer bientot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh

Indeed the States may be our last best hope.


44 posted on 07/05/2012 12:16:24 PM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

The number is irrelevant as there will always be an ample supply of people more than willing to put political views ahead of the US Constitution and the US Citizens.

What we need a 9 judges who have shown to have a full and complete understanding of the Constitution as INTENDED not what they would like it to say.

These judges need to use the owner’s manual, known as the Federalist Papers to erase any last vestiges of political bias and to insure they know how, what and why the Constitution was written and the intent of the founders to finally give the world a country with a LIMITED government. LIMITED government is one of the most important concepts and one that the black robed political hack lawyer morons seem unable, or more than likely, unwilling to grasp.


45 posted on 07/05/2012 12:17:02 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

Well said and agreed. unforunately we are in a situation
now where 1st and 2nd amendment rights are about to fall. We need to do something different. And most assuredly, we musy contain SC’s newfound power.


46 posted on 07/05/2012 12:26:13 PM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Yea, let’s let Obama pick six more SC judges. That should really help the country.


47 posted on 07/05/2012 12:28:05 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

Well read.


48 posted on 07/05/2012 12:31:18 PM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive
Sorry if I wasn't too clear on that. It's power given to the President by granting him/her 6 Justices to nominate, not the SCOTUS itself.

Also, I'm very pleased that you brought up this topic. A lot of folks are critically thinking about things and trying to come up with solutions.

Hypothetical:

Let's say you want to go from 9 to 15 Justices. Who picks the appointees? The President does. On 2/1/2013, Congress has authorized the SCOTUS to go from 9 to 15 Justices. If Obama is President at the time, he gets to send 6 nominees to be approved by Congress. You know as well as I do that Democrat nominees go through without any issues. If Romney is President, do you believe he will nominate 6 strict constitutionalists? Do you even think it will be 2-3?

So now instead of getting 5-4 and 6-3 decisions it becomes 11-4 and 12-3.

Yes, the individual Justice's power and influence is diminished. BUT how many years and Presidents’ SCOTUS nominees would it take to balance out the SCOTUS? If it could be even be done at that point.

This is all IMHO. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, etc. but just an average guy who loves our Country!

49 posted on 07/05/2012 12:33:45 PM PDT by Mr Fuji
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr Fuji

Yes and thank you for advancing the discussion. I know it’s a huge risk and if obama wins again it will backfire. But if romney wins and sc remains in its current form, we’re still screwed.


50 posted on 07/05/2012 12:43:05 PM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson