The Ginsburg Amendment

[joan1984]

  The words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her NPR Interview:

"...“Nine seems to be a good number,” Ginsburg told National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg on July 24, 2019. “It’s been that way for a long time.”

Ginsburg added: “I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”

In 1937, FDR tried to swell the Court to 15 seats from nine, as Congress defined it in 1869. The American public scorned FDR’s attempt to shoehorn his own pro-New Deal majority into the Court. FDR’s own Democrats, in fact, smothered his power-grab in its crib.

“If anything would make the court look partisan,” Ginsburg told Totenberg, “it would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

  We all respect Justice Ginsburgh, and a proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, setting the total number of SCOTUS Justices to 9 as Justice Ginsburg favored, would be an appropriate rememberance the Nation could agree about, and take this issue off the table, no matter who wins the National Election about one week from today.

[Army of One]

I had to look at what the term meant, and I have to admit, sometimes expanding the court is necessary. As it currently stands, the court is extremely partisan without needing to be packed. To return it to an equal distribution, either the ability to fire judges needs to be made, or it needs to expand the court.

I think you may be twisting Judge Ginsburg's words here; I'm fairly certain, in her final days, she was aware of what was going on in the court, and did not approve of it, hence her final wish for the court.

[MissBarbara]

  The words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her NPR Interview:

"...“Nine seems to be a good number,” Ginsburg told National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg on July 24, 2019. “It’s been that way for a long time.”

Ginsburg added: “I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”

In 1937, FDR tried to swell the Court to 15 seats from nine, as Congress defined it in 1869. The American public scorned FDR’s attempt to shoehorn his own pro-New Deal majority into the Court. FDR’s own Democrats, in fact, smothered his power-grab in its crib.

“If anything would make the court look partisan,” Ginsburg told Totenberg, “it would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”

  We all respect Justice Ginsburgh, and a proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, setting the total number of SCOTUS Justices to 9 as Justice Ginsburg favored, would be an appropriate rememberance the Nation could agree about, and take this issue off the table, no matter who wins the National Election about one week from today.

While I agree 100% with Justice Ginsberg's assertion -- and that would include the potential situation where the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress -- RBG would never, ever have agreed with a proposed constitutional amendment that set the number of justices permanently at nine.

Her reasons would have had nothing to do with partisan politics, and everything to do with the fact that it would represent a usurpation of the powers of Congress, especially since this particular Congressional prerogative has been in place for over 230 years.

[_priapism]

I had to look at what the term meant, and I have to admit, sometimes expanding the court is necessary. As it currently stands, the court is extremely partisan without needing to be packed. To return it to an equal distribution, either the ability to fire judges needs to be made, or it needs to expand the court.

I think you may be twisting Judge Ginsburg's words here; I'm fairly certain, in her final days, she was aware of what was going on in the court, and did not approve of it, hence her final wish for the court.

Five of the nine justices were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote. I think the real problem is a population explosion in the United States, that is turning the Senate and electoral college on end.

I’m a lawyer, a member of the United States Supreme Court, and I’ve argued a case before the Supreme Court. And here I am posting on a sex board. I don’t think we need to add additional justices. I think we need to amend the constitution to ensure we don’t have a tyranny of the minority.

And while I’m on the subject, we are in the midst of a huge demographic shift in America, where we will be a “minority majority” country in the next 20 or 30 years. So now we have to ask ourselves, are we capable of adjusting our democratic institutions to reflect this fact? Or are we going to let a bunch of fascist Nazis hijack The United States of America? Time will tell.

[MintJulie]

I don’t think we need to add additional justices. I think we need to amend the constitution to ensure we don’t have a tyranny of the minority.

I agree.

It was bad timing.  That a president was able to seat 3 SCJ's in a 4 year term, of course it's going to be out of whack.   

If Hillary had won in 2016, the Republican party would be jumping up and down right now with her being able to appoint 3.  Every Democrat would be saying it was her duty to appoint someone.   And we all know that she would have done the same thing of slipping another justice on the court in the weeks before the election.

I agree that there should be something in place so it doesn't get out of balance.  Something along the lines of, if it's 4-4, the President gets to appoint.  If it's 5-3 in favor of the current admin, the other party gets to appoint.   

Adding more Justices isn't the answer.  What's to stop it from going to 13, then 15, then 17.  We can't have every administration wanting to add more justices so their side can have majority.  That's crazy.


Imagine IF Trump were to get reelected next week, we must keep our fingers crossed that Stephen Breyer stays healthy and serves for the next 4 years. 

[Lois]

We have 13 circuit court in the United States.  Perhaps we should reform the court by having one Supreme Court Justice appointed from each circuit.  The caseload for the Supreme Court has certainly expanded with the population and this would also be a way for the Supreme Court to not only to handle the caseload but also be more representative of all of the United States.

And of course we should also reaportion the circuit courts according to the current poulation.  Currently the 9th circuit court seems to cover a huge percent of the population.

[_priapism]

A non-partisan Congressional Districting Commission.  Let computers draw proposed boundaries based on population, every ten years, and approved by Commission.  No more gerrymandering.  If Commission can’t agree, the computer models are approved.

[MissBarbara]

We have 13 circuit court in the United States.  Perhaps we should reform the court by having one Supreme Court Justice appointed from each circuit.  The caseload for the Supreme Court has certainly expanded with the population and this would also be a way for the Supreme Court to not only to handle the caseload but also be more representative of all of the United States.

And of course we should also reapportion the circuit courts according to the current population.  Currently the 9th circuit court seems to cover a huge percent of the population.

I agree with Lois: It makes perfect sense, for the three reasons she stated, to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices. Toe can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this can be achieved via Congressional legislation, and would not require a Constitutional amendment.

However, I would not agree that these four additional justices should be appointed by one president and confirmed by one Senate. Doing so when either party controls both the White House and the Senate would be completely unbalanced, and thus, highly objectionable. And, again, that's true for both parties.

Of course, in a perfect world, this wouldn't matter, since the president would nominate and the Senate approve the most qualified jurists, regardless of perceived political leanings. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. Thus, to borrow Toe's idea, perhaps a non-partisan Congressional committee could be created, via legislation that makes it a one-time event, where the four additional justices could be nominated in a way that ensures balance.

[MissBarbara]

I’m a lawyer, a member of the United States Supreme Court, and I’ve argued a case before the Supreme Court. And here I am posting on a sex board.
 

To my mind, that is, by far, the best thing about this board.

You can write a hard-hitting polemical argument on national politics, and then switch over and ogle a lovely red-headed lass.

It's the best of both worlds!

[_priapism]

I agree with Lois: It makes perfect sense, for the three reasons she stated, to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices. Toe can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this can be achieved via Congressional legislation, and would not require a Constitutional amendment.

The U.S. Constitution did not set the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Therefore, it was up to Congress to decide, and in 1801, it set the number at five.

Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, and to 10 in 1863.

Then, in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.

However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not changed since.

[MissBarbara]

We all respect Justice Ginsburgh, and a proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, setting the total number of SCOTUS Justices to 9 as Justice Ginsburg favored, would be an appropriate rememberance the Nation could agree about, and take this issue off the table, no matter who wins the National Election about one week from today.

I just stumbled upon this article while looking for something else.

It seems like your boy Marco Rubio beat you to the punch back in March 2019:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/434888-rubio-to-introduce-legislation-to-keep-supreme-court-at-nine-seats

[Dudester]

It is a slippery slope to just start appointing extra justices just because your group has a perceived slight. Bill Maher correctly pointed out that Ginsburg has had cancer for quite a while-the cancer didn't suddenly pop up.
Ginsburg could have retired during the Obama administration but chose not to. To use a sports analogy, she stayed in the game while injured, ending up causing the team to lose a big game.
And as far as "majority wins", the founding fathers created the electoral college so that the residents of Philadelphia and Boston would not be the only ones deciding who the president is. In today's terms there are those who feel that only Chicago, NYC and LA should decide who the president is. What about the rest of the country-do they not have a voice? Yes. The founding fathers gave them that voice.

[joan1984]

 When President Trump wins next week, Barbara, you and Lois would like him to immediately submit the Nominations of FOUR new SCOTUS Associate Justices, for the U.S. Senate to vet and appoint to the current Supreme Court?

  That could work, if that is what you really want. Suggest you contact your U.S. Senator's Offices, so your desires can be accomplished.

I agree with Lois: It makes perfect sense, for the three reasons she stated, to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices. Toe can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this can be achieved via Congressional legislation, and would not require a Constitutional amendment.

The U.S. Constitution did not set the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Therefore, it was up to Congress to decide, and in 1801, it set the number at five.

Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, and to 10 in 1863.

Then, in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.

However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not changed since.

[Lois]

Going out on a limb there, eh Peaches?

[Army of One]

It was bad timing.  That a president was able to seat 3 SCJ's in a 4 year term, of course it's going to be out of whack.   

I just noticed this, and I feel I need to comment on this.

The reason why Obama only got two nominees in, and Trump three, was because of the bullshit the Republicans pulled in 2016, where they would not approve a new judge "so soon before the election" (seriously, nine months is too soon, but one is fine!?). I doubt poor luck was completely at fault here.

[MissBarbara]

It was bad timing.  That a president was able to seat 3 SCJ's in a 4 year term, of course it's going to be out of whack.   

I just noticed this, and I feel I need to comment on this.

The reason why Obama only got two nominees in, and Trump three, was because of the bullshit the Republicans pulled in 2016, where they would not approve a new judge "so soon before the election" (seriously, nine months is too soon, but one is fine!?). I doubt poor luck was completely at fault here.

While I don't disagree with your assertion about Garland, Obama served for 8 years, and when Trump nominated Barrett, he'd only been in office for about 3-1/2 years.

At the same time, what should be noted is the relative youth of Trump's nominees: At the time of their nominations, Gorsuch was 50, Kavanaugh was 53, and Barrett was 48.

[watcher1]

In the stage play, What the Constitution means to me playing on Amazon Prime, the host plays a snippet from a commentator asking Justice RBG about how many women on the Supreme Court would be enough. Her answer - 9.

[Lois]

The youth of Trump's nominees was on purpose. Mitch McConnell wanted appointments that would influence the court for many years to come.

[eater]

justices are not making decisions based on their religion or whether red or blue anyway, if they do they are piss poor , they are to set aside politics and religion and their personal opinions and decide cases on the law and the constitution, period.