Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Packing the Supreme Court

Bingo. One of the things I've wanted to see is a GOP program to go after the lower courts (primarily the federal district courts, but also the appeals courts). The Constitution only establishes the Supreme Court. Congress created the lower courts and Congress can eliminate them. If the GOP really wanted to put nuclear options on the table to counter Nancy's arrows in her quiver, they'd threaten to eliminate lower courts and replace them with a much smaller number of courts that are bound by very strict rules--e.g., no nationwide injunctions, no rulings or orders that impact fundamental rights, etc. It would be perfectly constitutional and it would wipe out the swamp that is federal court activism.

This is not a new idea:



Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
From Wikipedia,

President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His dissatisfaction over Supreme Court decisions holding New Deal programs unconstitutional prompted him to seek out methods to change the way the court functioned.
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months.

In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan." [2]

Roosevelt's legislative initiative ultimately failed

As well as John Thune who is the Party Whip. The whip has as their primary job to make sure they are all in line.

Right per usual.

This is what we need to worry about in November. I fear the Dems will get exactly this and will then run roughshod over everything we've ever known.

The result of activist judges on the federal courts.



The reason we need constitutionalist judges in the federal courts. You can't predict the future but you can anticipate the future and make plans to deal with various scenarios. Some might call this conspiring. I would like to see Trump nominate a replacement tomorrow and have the senate vote by October 1. After Trump wins the election, if Republicans keep control of the Senate, I would like to see him propose increasing the number of justices to 15. He could then place six more justices on the Supreme Court in his next term. There would be ten constitutionalist justices, four activist judges and Roberts. I don't think an effort to increase the number of justices beyond that would gain traction because, as others have said, the court would be too unwieldy. At that point it would take a long time to change the balance of the court.

Ok. I was mistaken.
It is not a new idea.
But an old and over ruled one from a notorious big government proponent.
Thanks Hatari.

True , but most everything they judge and rule on concerns legislation

Their job is to rule on laws and legislation whether they are constitutional or not

Do they cross the line and legislate from the bench, yes since Obama and since Roberts has been compromised, but that doesn’t change the fact that Legislation and laws are their primary concern

They should only concern themselves, or involve themselves with what does or doesn't apply to our Constitution.

Period.

They crossed the line by miles way before Obama and Roberts.

Look at Roe V Wade. (as one example)

That's why abortion is such a sore spot today. It was legislated from the Supreme Court.

It wasn't passed or failed as law.

It's not in the US Constitution.

It was blatantly ruled as law from the bench by the Supreme Court.

The faster we get a nominee named, the faster we go from "should it be done" to "hey this is the candidate, prove that the person isn't qualified".

Mitch ain’t goona do schit.