The case for stripping the Supreme Court of its power

[Flash]

Article III, Section 2 does that. It's clear when the Court has original and when it has appellate jurisdiction.

There are a very limited number of cases in which the SC has original jurisdiction under the Constitution. All other cases, original or appellate, are set by Congress.

[Into the Night]

Yes, however, Article III establishes that Congress can regulate federal courts, including the size of the Supreme Court. Which has been changed at least 7 times. Congress also has the power to revoke SCOTUS' appellate powers, effectively telling them what cases they can and cannot hear.

Congress does not have authority to repeal appellate authority of the supreme court.

[Into the Night]

It is always difficult to get a 2/3 House and Senate vote and 3/4 of the states to agree; especially since a majority of Americans favor legal abortion under various circumstances.

No constitutional amendment is necessary. The federal government does not have authority over abortions. The States do. Congress does not have authority to change the Constitution. Only the States can do that.

[Flash]

But they can change the number of Justices, nothing in the Constitution that says they can not, and it is not a question of "losing," Mitch's refusal to give Obama's nominee even a hearing wasn't about "losing," but rather using political means to purposely redefine the Court, and what is good for one, will certainly be good for the other, or, as I have said, if the "cause we can" is the guiding principle, what goes around is certain to come around

Both parties are willing to "pack" the courts when it is in their interest.

"Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia have signed bills passed by GOP-dominated legislatures to expand the number of seats on their states’ respective high courts. In Iowa, the Republican governor gained greater leverage over the commission that names judicial nominees."

https://apnews.com/article/legislatu...61603aabf92302

[CFM]

But they can change the number of Justices, nothing in the Constitution that says they can not, and it is not a question of "losing," Mitch's refusal to give Obama's nominee even a hearing wasn't about "losing," but rather using political means to purposely redefine the Court, and what is good for one, will certainly be good for the other, or, as I have said, if the "cause we can" is the guiding principle, what goes around is certain to come around

Perhaps your forgot what has been dubbed the Biden Rule:

- Biden gave a long speech in June 1992 calling for then President George H.W. Bush to not proceed with a Supreme Court nomination should a vacancy occur, although there was none at the time. This speech would later be dubbed “The Biden rule.”

- In his speech, Biden made a case for both parties, and the White House and Senate, to work together on Supreme Court nominations.

- Biden didn’t appear to rule out a nomination after Election Day, stating that a “nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

The problem you left wing pussies had was when "what is good for one" was applied, you didn't like it. It came around and you whined.

[Into the Night]

But they can change the number of Justices, nothing in the Constitution that says they can not, and it is not a question of "losing," Mitch's refusal to give Obama's nominee even a hearing wasn't about "losing," but rather using political means to purposely redefine the Court, and what is good for one, will certainly be good for the other, or, as I have said, if the "cause we can" is the guiding principle, what goes around is certain to come around

To change the number of justices on the supreme court you have to get both houses to pass the bill, and that bill has to be signed by the President.

[CFM]

Both parties are willing to "pack" the courts when it is in their interest.

"Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia have signed bills passed by GOP-dominated legislatures to expand the number of seats on their states’ respective high courts. In Iowa, the Republican governor gained greater leverage over the commission that names judicial nominees."

https://apnews.com/article/legislatu...61603aabf92302

When have Republicans proposed packing the Courts?

What happens in a few States cannot be applied as a similar concept with the U.S. as a whole.

[Into the Night]

If the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution what do they do?

See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. I am not going to repeat it here.

[Damocles]

demmycrats on a roll.......next they'll want to cancel the executive branch and the senate......if you can't beat em, eliminate em......

We should eliminate the vote, just have some NYT polls done and declare a victor to appoint as Dear Leader regardless of the vote. Polling done by "news" sources should also be the SCOTUS replacement. Dear Leader should just announce new laws, no need for a Legislature elected by those idiot citizens who elected people they don't think should be elected. All these changes will also eliminate that pesky Constitution that keeps getting in the way of their grip on total power.

[archives]

Both parties are willing to "pack" the courts when it is in their interest.

"Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia have signed bills passed by GOP-dominated legislatures to expand the number of seats on their states’ respective high courts. In Iowa, the Republican governor gained greater leverage over the commission that names judicial nominees."

https://apnews.com/article/legislatu...61603aabf92302

True, but until Mitch stepped in, Supreme Court Justice hearings were still subject to closure/filibuster, meaning the nominee weren't confirmed on a strict majority vote, the minority had a say, consequently, overt ideologues nor political hacks were appointed as we have seen during the Trump era

[CFM]

There are a very limited number of cases in which the SC has original jurisdiction under the Constitution. All other cases, original or appellate, are set by Congress.

I know. The Constitution lists them not Congress.

The Constitution, not Congress, also lists when the Court has appellate jurisdiction.

[Flash]

No constitutional amendment is necessary. The federal government does not have authority over abortions. The States do. Congress does not have authority to change the Constitution. Only the States can do that.

Only in your world. We both know the federal courts interpret the Constitution and have made many changes in its meaning and operation since 1789 including many of the founders who probably were aware of what they created.

States have no power to change the Constitution without corresponding federal action. Otherwise, it completely negates the entire purpose of the Constitution to create a central government with increased power over that relatively weak document created under the Articles of Confederation.

[archives]

See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. I am not going to repeat it here.

In other words, you can't answer the question, see that often from posters caught in an error, usually it is "go Google it," thanks

[CFM]

True, but until Mitch stepped in, Supreme Court Justice hearings were still subject to closure/filibuster, meaning the nominee weren't confirmed on a strict majority vote, the minority had a say, consequently, overt ideologues nor political hacks were appointed as we have seen during the Trump era

Hey dipshit, the minority party did have a say. In fact, with Barrett, they had 47 says. What you don't like is the majority party has 52 says of an opposite opinion.

[CFM]

In other words, you can't answer the question, see that often from posters caught in an error, usually it is "go Google it," thanks

I don't have to Google Article III of the Constitution. Why do you?