Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck


Recommended Posts

Yeah that was just a bad assumption on my part that Supreme Court Justice was something you work your way up to through being a judge elsewhere first.  Sounds like there is no exact formula to who/why to nominate someone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

Yeah that was just a bad assumption on my part that Supreme Court Justice was something you work your way up to through being a judge elsewhere first.  Sounds like there is no exact formula to who/why to nominate someone. 

 

Well if you're Republican, it has to be a Federalist Society pick. Which by itself should probably be a disqualifier.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

This is really out of my wheelhouse but that doesn't seem that out of the norm doing some quick research. Elena Kegan actually had 0 experience being a judge before being nominated. Looks like Clarence Thomas also was only an actual judge for a couple years too before his nomination. 

 

 

There's really gotta be some kind of basic requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice. As it is.... Trump could nominate you or me and all we'd need is a Senate majority to become a Justice for life. 

 

Wait till you hear the requirements to become Pope ... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right after the civil war when Johnson became President; the congress cut the  size of the Supreme Court from 10 to 7. Then after his administration they raised it back to 9; where it’s been ever since.

 

 

If the court gets expanded and a future congress cuts the size if the court; which judges loses their slot?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I'd eliminate every single Federalist Society judge. 

That maybe the wish but I wonder if there’s a procedure?

 

Say the Dems expand to 11 or 13 but the GOP regains control in 24 and decide to cut the court. Would they cut the justices the Dems expanded or is there a procedure?

 

I do feel once we expand the court; the court will continully change size. Depending on who has control.

Edited by Rdskns2000
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

 

If the court gets expanded and a future congress cuts the size if the court; which judges loses their slot?

 

Nobody... The Constitution says federal judges serve a lifetime term, and I don't think anyone knows if moving them to a different circuit would be allowed.

 

In the case of the Johnson administration era court, the seats were only eliminated as they came open. No one was removed.

 

It was basically a power play to keep Johnson from appointing any Justices. Mitch would be proud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

That maybe the wish but I wonder if there’s a procedure?

 

Say the Dems expand to 11 or 13 but the GOP regains control in 24 and decide to cut the court. Would they cut the justices the Dems expanded or is there a procedure?

 

I do feel once we expand the court; the court will continully change size. Depending on who has control.

 

Which is why DC and PR are important for Statehood (especially for the Dems). Tbf, they both should have been States for many years now. I'm aware PR has shot it down in the past but I'd suspect they'd get support internally now.

Edited by The Evil Genius
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rdskns2000 said:

That maybe the wish but I wonder if there’s a procedure?

 

Say the Dems expand to 11 or 13 but the GOP regains control in 24 and decide to cut the court. Would they cut the justices the Dems expanded or is there a procedure.

 

I do feel once we expand the court; the court will continully change size. Depending on who has control.

 

I can't imagine they'd want to pull back. They'd just want to add more and more. So, if you were to grow the SCOTUS and Federal Courts. You do it based on # of Citizens in the United States so it grows when we hit new population benchmarks. Right now if we have one Justice for every 36M and you want to go to one for every 25M. That brings you from 9 to 13. Once we his 350M Americans. Then it goes to 14.

 

Not saying that is likely or that I even care how/why they add more. They probably should, and they probably should add rules that makes it harder to change this system after it's set. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...