The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
GOP 2016: Cannot nominate SCOTUS in election year. GOP 2020: Feces smeared on fa
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 21st, 2020 12:32 PM Author: stimulating seedy national stain (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959312) |
Date: September 21st, 2020 12:44 PM Author: Onyx twinkling uncleanness dragon haha, yeah rudolph, they sure look ridiculous with that 6-3 scotus (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959372) |
 |
Date: September 21st, 2020 12:51 PM Author: maroon comical state selfie it will look ridiculous when it's 7-6 Dem next year with DC and PR as states because you really wanted a power play that the American people didn't authorize.
you won't be able to see though, because you will be in a --> camp |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:01 PM Author: Charismatic harsh step-uncle's house US can just add states through a party line congressional vote? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959492) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:07 PM Author: impertinent mustard meetinghouse french chef Maybe the 7-6 scotus can decide (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959523) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:10 PM Author: stimulating seedy national stain Yes, you dumb fuck. Now see what you have done. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959535) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:06 PM Author: Salmon foreskin (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959513) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:13 PM Author: Onyx twinkling uncleanness dragon http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4627914&mc=12&forum_id=2 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959558) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:58 PM Author: Wild rebellious locus Explain how the American people did not authorize the sitting POTUS to nominate a justice to fill a SCOTUS vacancy and the Senate to take what action it will with respect to that nomination. Ever heard of the constitution? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959868) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:13 PM Author: opaque plaza factory reset button some talk about puerto rico given statehood so it can have senators. 77% of puerto ricans believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. that would make it the most prolife state. Mississippi is a runner up, with 59%
Also - can Roberts / scotus not do anything to prevent court packing? (not a lawmo so have no clue)
Also there's a provision when Texas joined the union that congress already gave authority allowing Texas to divide into 5 states if it ever chose to |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:14 PM Author: stimulating seedy national stain (guy who opens pandora's box and then starts asking questions about ramifications) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959564) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:16 PM Author: Onyx twinkling uncleanness dragon all that it takes to alter the size of the supreme court is simple legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869
congress can also limit scotus's jurisdiction to essentially whatever too.
kind of wild. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 2:31 PM Author: Peach personal credit line water buffalo FOUr pinocchios congress cannot strip SC original jx (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40960118) |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:38 PM Author: erotic athletic conference The size of the Court has been changed before, most recently immediately after the Civil War, around the time the federal government was forcing states to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments as a condition to reenter the Union (probably not something we'd allow today, although it'd be pretty funny for TRUMP to try something like that).
I'm not aware that the constitutionality of any prior law changing the Court's size has ever been litigated, which would mean there's no binding precedent, but even if there was, SCOTUS could absolutely decide to overrule -- separation of powers means that Congress clearly can't just decide that it doesn't like the Court's decisions, so it will undo them indirectly via Court-packing legislation. (Nothing in the Constitution expressly gives Congress the right to set the size of the Court; it's just tradition that it fell to Congress.)
Congress would disagree, of course, and things would immediately devolve into a credibility contest between the Court and Dem-controlled Congress/POTUS, with the only actual power / discretion to resolve these disputes being held by the military.
EDIT: I'm not saying any of this is going to happen; I'm just laying out one of many scenarios where this tack ends badly for the republic. This is why Court-packing is the quintessential 'red line' for democracy, more even than Senate-packing via the admission of new states (which has strong inherent limitations). |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 2:35 PM Author: Salmon foreskin " -- separation of powers means that Congress clearly can't just decide that it doesn't like the Court's decisions, so it will undo them indirectly via Court-packing legislation."
How would adding more SCOTUS to the bench "undo" any prior decision?
Theoretically all nominees go on to the bench with an "open mind" towards any pending litigation. |
|
Date: September 21st, 2020 1:43 PM Author: Indigo beta stock car (poaster who vehemently disagrees with President Obama who said to “fill that seat!”) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4629683&forum_id=2#40959760) |