6/1/2023 0 Comments If it please the court meaningHistorically, the number of justices has varied between five and ten. There is nothing sacrosanct about nine justices. Article III, section 1 provides simply that "he judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Constitution is silent about the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Why bargain when you are getting everything you want?ĭoes the Constitution specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court? Have there been a different number of justices in the past? As long as Republicans play hardball with the appointments process and Democrats fail to respond in kind, Republicans have no reason to come to the table. Restoring a sense of balance to the Court will require Republicans and Democrats to come together and agree on new rules for how justices are chosen and the kind of jurists who serve on the Court. Paradoxically, I think that's a good development. If Democrats respond to the Barrett appointment by expanding the size of the Court, the immediate effect will be to further diminish the Court's standing and make it hard for anyone to take the Supreme Court seriously. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. Seen from this perspective, the Barrett appointment is classic court packing. ![]() ![]() A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election). People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. What does it mean to pack the courts, is it the appropriate response and would it make the courts less of a partisan battleground issue? Rutgers Law School professor David Noll, whose scholarship and writing focus on the federal courts, explains the issues at the heart of the debate and how Republicans share the blame for the prospect of an expanded Supreme Court. The move is particularly polarizing because Republicans refused to consider President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland to fill a vacancy that occurred nine months before the 2016 election, but rushed to fill the seat following the death of liberal stalwart Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The confirmation of Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett eight days before the election by a partisan 52-48 vote has renewed questions about whether Democrats will try to increase the number of justices on the country’s highest court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |