Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
This article in today's New York Times surprised me, just like my surprise when I first learned about "implied consent." It's the kind of article that leaves you saying, "I didn't know they could do that."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26smith.html?th&emc=th
Historically the number of Supreme Court justices has varied between six and ten. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies that there must be exactly nine Supreme Court justices. The article implies that if a Democratic president is elected in 2008, and the Democratic majority in Congress stays the same or increases, we could easily add one or two justices more to the Supreme Court roster and reverse the conservative majority in the court -- right away.
Likewise, if a liberal judge were to retire or die before Bush leaves office (either voluntarily or by force), Congress, if sufficiently concerned, could use a simple majority vote to cap the number of Supreme Court justices at eight, and deprive Bush of a new appointment. I love the Constitution!!!
Do you think anyone in Congress today knows that they have this power? Probably not enough.
I Didn't Know They Could Do That!
|
Posted By: www.MoronInCharge.com Posted on: Jul. 26, 2007 at 7:40 PM  2 Comments
|
5.0 / 5
Based on 1 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Jul. 26, 2007 at 11:20:31 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Well AZRW, you are correct. It is, in a sense, packing. You are also correct that Roosevelt tried something like this and overreached. But it is legal, constitutional, and a tactic of last resort. Checks and balances go every which way between our three branches of government, and this tactic is one of the few checks and balances that the Congress can apply to the Supreme Court. Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant used it, and rather than cause a crisis, in most cases it avoided one. The conservative majority in the Court has become exactly what Bush said he was opposed to: a political, ideology driven band of brothers who seek to legislate from the bench and ignore rather than respect legal precedent. Changing the composition of the Court by redefining the rules of the game may be the judicial "nuclear option," but as the Bush Administration is fond of saying: all options are on the table. I doubt that if the Democrats take the White House and solidify their numbers in Congress, there would be a demonstrable need to undo the damage wrought upon the Court by the railroaded appointments of agenda-driven justices picked by our "war President." But if our impeached or about to be impeached President should find the opportunity to appoint yet another ideological crony into a lifetime position, then I would say that all bets are off the table as to how Congress should proceed. That would be like letting Alberto pick his Special Prosecutor. At that point, my advice would be "no more Mr. Nice Guy," and stack away. |
||
It's called "packing" just keep appointing SCOTUS justices until you get a majority that would rather rewrite the Constitution than read it. The perfect socialist solution, rule by unaccountable lifetime appointees. Who needs elections when the mandarins in black robes can peer into a penumbra a discover new rights or impose laws from another country or take away your property for the benefit of another in the "public interest."
FDR tried this unsuccessfully when he was President. Be sure and make public your plans so the electorate can make an informed decision when they vote.
Report Abuse