Biden naming panel to study court reform, such as adding justices or term limits.

**Grand58742** · 04-09-21, 19:08

Term limits for the SCOTUS, but not for Congress.

We are living in the theater of the absurd.

**Uni-Vibe** · 04-10-21, 11:03

Originally Posted by Firefly

That’s really unconstitutional.

I mean if laws don’t mean anything then laws don’t mean anything

Wrong.

The Constituition only establishes the Supreme Court. The Congress, by statute, sets the number of justices. Congress can't kick off justices and shrink the Court, but they could add 148 justices tomorrow if they wanted to. That's strictly in accordance with the rule of law.

Lawyers here weigh in but I'm confident that's the law.

**Twilk73** · 04-10-21, 14:38

Originally Posted by Grand58742

Term limits for the SCOTUS, but not for Congress.

We are living in the theater of the absurd.

This was my thinking, I want term limits for congress.

**FromMyColdDeadHand** · 04-10-21, 14:56

I want term limits for staffers. That’s the real problem, the cabal behind the faces

.

Originally Posted by flenna

Punch Drunk Joe just released the results of the "study": the SC will be much more fair, efficient and diverse if he adds 7 more anti-American, communist judges.

Did he release it, or are you joking?

Obviously someone would file a suit if they tried to stuff the court. Frankly it probably is legal for them to add more seats to the court, but it would totally delegitimize it. That would put Roberts in a really sticky wicket. He’s always said he doesn’t want the Supreme Court to become some political circus, but this would make it the biggest political circus joke of all time. Even though maybe legal, you don’t most have to vote against it to save his supreme court for becoming the bullshit that he fears it is.

Far bigger threat to the judiciary than anything Trump tried to do.

**Uni-Vibe** · 04-10-21, 15:27

Some of this was brought on by recent events.

Seat comes open. Merrick Garland is nominated 8 months before the next election. Repubs refuse to confirm, saying let's not thwart the will of the people, wait for the election.

Seat comes open. Amy Barrett is nominated 8 DAYS before the next election. Repubs have no qualms about the will of the people.

So now they complain about politicization?

**pinzgauer** · 04-11-21, 10:07

Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe

Some of this was brought on by recent events.

Seat comes open. Merrick Garland is nominated 8 months before the next election. Repubs refuse to confirm, saying let's not thwart the will of the people, wait for the election.

Seat comes open. Amy Barrett is nominated 8 DAYS before the next election. Repubs have no qualms about the will of the people.

So now they complain about politicization?

You act so surprised, this is the way the game is played with the majority on both sides.

Look at the opposition for very qualified judges and cabinet positions. It used to be if there wasn't a reason not to approve senators would recognize expertise even if they disagreed with the position. The Dems weaponized appointments starting with Bork, finally tuned it with Clarence Thomas, and executed ever since.

**jsbhike** · 04-11-21, 11:49

Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe

Wrong.

The Constituition only establishes the Supreme Court. The Congress, by statute, sets the number of justices. Congress can't kick off justices and shrink the Court, but they could add 148 justices tomorrow if they wanted to. That's strictly in accordance with the rule of law.

Lawyers here weigh in but I'm confident that's the law.

Nothing in the Constitution mentions Congress screwing with the number of sCOTUS justices, just lower courts. That being said, the Adams administration and federal cronies dropped the original court's 6 justices to 5 which is another example of how early the powers that be indicated their desire to violate their own rules and that there was no punishment for those violations.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

**FromMyColdDeadHand** · 04-11-21, 12:18

Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe

Some of this was brought on by recent events.

Seat comes open. Merrick Garland is nominated 8 months before the next election. Repubs refuse to confirm, saying let's not thwart the will of the people, wait for the election.

Seat comes open. Amy Barrett is nominated 8 DAYS before the next election. Repubs have no qualms about the will of the people.

So now they complain about politicization?

LEt's be perfectly clear. Garland isn't on SCOTUS because Obama decided he wanted the issue more than he wanted Garland on the court. Obama did as close to nothing as he could do to get him a hearing. Garland was a fairly middle of the road pick, and the left didn't really want him on the court. They want RBG clones. I'd say that Garland wasn't going to get into SCOTUS even if HRC had won.

What is the difference of keeping a corpse like RBG on the court to keep a pick coming up versus chilling a pick like Garland. That's all politics.

Obama was a true dead duck. Trump has another term ahead of him. Biden is only going to be a one-termer, why give 1 one-termer the pick over another one-termer?

That is all politics. Adding seats to SCOTUS isn't politics, that is changing the game. Doing that and then adding states.... that is all beyond 'politics'- that is full on power grabs.

**Uni-Vibe** · 04-11-21, 12:43

Originally Posted by jsbhike

Nothing in the Constitution mentions Congress screwing with the number of sCOTUS justices, just lower courts. That being said, the Adams administration and federal cronies dropped the original court's 6 justices to 5 which is another example of how early the powers that be indicated their desire to violate their own rules and that there was no punishment for those violations.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

28 US code section 1

I thought so. Congress sets the number of justices and could pack the court any time they wanted to.