Okay... still doesn't mean the Constitution can't be amended.
Confirmation Hearing live: Judge Amy Barrett
- Thread starter Dutch Uncle
- Start date
Okay... still doesn't mean the Constitution can't be amended.
True. There are definitely some things that should be amended, like limiting the size of the Supreme Court.
Obviously the Constitution can be amended but it's unlikely to get 2/3s of the States to agree on an Amendment much less obtain a 3/4 ratification vote. It's the same reason why a Convention of States is unlikely.
True. As much as I'd like to amend certain things, I'm quite glad it's very hard to amend. Otherwise, we'd be pretty screwed by now.
Agreed. Just another reason to respect the wisdom of the Founders. In general, technology changes but people don't.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
It's called "sarcasm" from the perspective of profound disgust.
I don't literally want Barrett to be physically harmed.
I just wish that she'd disappear, along with every single person who doesn't recognize her inadequacies.
Good of you to finally admit you don't wish to see her gang raped but sad you want them "disappeared".
Amending a lifetime term on the SC would be an improvement.
Amend how? State elections? Or just put an age limit such as 70 on appointments?
Do you think a Democrat President and Congress would try to make that happen or would they be more interested in passing a gun bill and adding 4 more seats to SCOTUS in order to further politicize the Judicial process?
Amending the way the Constitution allows for. The Constitution doesn't say specifically that appointments are for a lifetime; it says that "judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court... The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..." The clause which mentions that justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" has long been interpreted to mean that they will continue to serve for the rest of their lives, unless they retire or are impeached." So it looks like that clause is a matter of interpretation and custom, not fact.
Article 3 doesn't set a size for the court so at least in theory seats can be added. IMO that's not going to happen; it's a talking point to gin up fear about a radical liberal takeover of the court.
What kind of gun bill would need more SC seats?
An interesting observation. Unfortunately it's SCOTUS that interprets the Constitution and, unless Congress passes a legislation on it, SCOTUS will stick with past precedent and past convention.
One way to change it is by defining "good Behavior" to include physically and mentally competent to serve. That's not an age or term limit but a simple verification of "good behavior".
Sorry my post was unclear: I was referencing the focus of the next Congress and President not the issue of SCOTUS per se.
I agree actually. I think this was an oversight on the part of the Founders.
"Pack" the Supreme Court? Absolutely 100% yes!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/pack-the-supreme-court-absolutely-100-25-yes-e2-80-94-its-the-only-way-to-save-democracy/ar-BB19TCPv
A simple fix would be to stagger Justice terms every 2 years. This would effectively mean that each Justice would sit for 18 years and then either be replaced or reconfirmed. We could start with the Justices that have sat on the court for the longest. We'd also need to make the terms end on odd-numbered years to avoid any election shenanigans.
I'd be more inclined to believe that it was just talk if there weren't so many prominent Democrats and columnists talking favorably about it, and if Biden would directly reject the idea.