Could Biden Just Appoint a Bunch of New SCOTUS Justices?

[Anonymous]

What's stopping Biden from just appointing 5 or so new SCOTUS justices? There's nothing in the Constitution that says there can only be 9. There's a statute that says 9, but I'm not sure how that would stop the president and Senate from just appointing and confirming a few more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's stopping Biden from just appointing 5 or so new SCOTUS justices? There's nothing in the Constitution that says there can only be 9. There's a statute that says 9, but I'm not sure how that would stop the president and Senate from just appointing and confirming a few more.

the problem is the senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's stopping Biden from just appointing 5 or so new SCOTUS justices? There's nothing in the Constitution that says there can only be 9. There's a statute that says 9, but I'm not sure how that would stop the president and Senate from just appointing and confirming a few more.

the problem is the senate.

of course, he'd have to convince all 50 to confirm, but if he could?

[Anonymous]

Scotus is governed by statute passed by Congress.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-1

Congress can increase or decrease the size of the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scotus is governed by statute passed by Congress.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-1

Congress can increase or decrease the size of the court.

Yeah, I know. But the Senate decided to violate that statute for a year or so by refusing to act on Garland's nomination. Obviously they don't see it as binding. So why couldn't they confirm a few more if they were nominated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scotus is governed by statute passed by Congress.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-1

Congress can increase or decrease the size of the court.

Yeah, I know. But the Senate decided to violate that statute for a year or so by refusing to act on Garland's nomination. Obviously they don't see it as binding. So why couldn't they confirm a few more if they were nominated?

The Senate was arguably violating the Constitution and their own rules by disregarding the Garland nomination.

Biden could nominate someone...but the Senate would be under no obligation to consider it.

[Anonymous]

You know the undemocratic and good for nothing Senate has been a real pain to bringing about the progress Americans voted for. I think the President should just start governing by E.O. Increase the court. Implement BBB. I know it’s harsh but these are unprecedented times and we are literally on the verge of losing our democracy to the forces of evil repubs and turncoat, traitorous Democrats. I say give it a try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know the undemocratic and good for nothing Senate has been a real pain to bringing about the progress Americans voted for. I think the President should just start governing by E.O. Increase the court. Implement BBB. I know it’s harsh but these are unprecedented times and we are literally on the verge of losing our democracy to the forces of evil repubs and turncoat, traitorous Democrats. I say give it a try.

Because the people just love it when presidents with horrible approval ratings just go YOLO and burn it all down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's stopping Biden from just appointing 5 or so new SCOTUS justices? There's nothing in the Constitution that says there can only be 9. There's a statute that says 9, but I'm not sure how that would stop the president and Senate from just appointing and confirming a few more.

Look if you are going to increase the court you should fit it. You do not just add 5, you add 100 and have 4-5 groups of 9 judges sit each session. Have clear and enforced conflict of interest rules and Random drawings of judges for each session. It is ridiculous how little they work each year and the amount of back logged cases. Right now it’s just a political court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scotus is governed by statute passed by Congress.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-1

Congress can increase or decrease the size of the court.

Yeah, I know. But the Senate decided to violate that statute for a year or so by refusing to act on Garland's nomination. Obviously they don't see it as binding. So why couldn't they confirm a few more if they were nominated?

The Senate was arguably violating the Constitution and their own rules by disregarding the Garland nomination.

Biden could nominate someone...but the Senate would be under no obligation to consider it.

There was no such violation. You may not like what they did and there could be (but was not) a political price for what they did. But the right not to consider is part of the power to confirm. It's not a machine where you vote when someone tells you. The majority decides when they vote. Nothing can force the majority. The oversight for this is the People who can vote the people out that did wrong. Of course here the People rewarded them largely.

Even if they did violate the statute (which they did not) that does not mean that the other side can now violate it. And even if they did -- there are not 50 votes to add more justices. A year from now Biden will not get any judge confirmed unless the person is a Republican since you are likely looking at a 54-46 Republican Senate.

I am a Democrat and this is the reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's stopping Biden from just appointing 5 or so new SCOTUS justices? There's nothing in the Constitution that says there can only be 9. There's a statute that says 9, but I'm not sure how that would stop the president and Senate from just appointing and confirming a few more.

Look if you are going to increase the court you should fit it. You do not just add 5, you add 100 and have 4-5 groups of 9 judges sit each session. Have clear and enforced conflict of interest rules and Random drawings of judges for each session. It is ridiculous how little they work each year and the amount of back logged cases. Right now it’s just a political court.

I don't think you know what they do. The work is hard and takes all the time they have absent a short summer break where they are still working as well. There are no backlogged Supreme Court cases. I think you are confusing your talking points. Also random panels would create chaos in terms of what law to follow. What makes this country work is that the legal system is predictable. You may not like the outcome but you know what the outcome is likely to be. That can be planned for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's stopping Biden from just appointing 5 or so new SCOTUS justices? There's nothing in the Constitution that says there can only be 9. There's a statute that says 9, but I'm not sure how that would stop the president and Senate from just appointing and confirming a few more.

Look if you are going to increase the court you should fit it. You do not just add 5, you add 100 and have 4-5 groups of 9 judges sit each session. Have clear and enforced conflict of interest rules and Random drawings of judges for each session. It is ridiculous how little they work each year and the amount of back logged cases. Right now it’s just a political court.

I completely agree. We need reform that makes sense, not out of revenge or spite. But I agree that it's a political court - and on both sides. Rehnquist with his gold armbands. Ginsburg with her collars. She should have clearly retired. Breyer should retire. Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kanavaugh are partisan. Thomas seems insane. Alito is overtly political. Roberts is conservative, of course, but seems principled. Kagan and Sotomayor don't seem to speak out publicly very much. They are clearly left leaning, of course.

Anyway, my proposal is this:

-Increase the size of the court to 13, to reflect the 13 appellate courts;
-I think ideally (where ideally is doing a LOT of work) you add justices in as bi-partisan manner as you can - i.e. - Biden gets to add two justices and the next Republican President gets to add two;
-The current justices, plus the four added (maybe) get to serve for life terms or until they retire, but subsequently the Court is a floating court. Meaning, the most senior member of each circuit serves on the Supreme Court for 15 years or until they reach age 75, at which time they can return to senior status or retire.

IMO we should not have people on the court for 30, 40, 50 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's stopping Biden from just appointing 5 or so new SCOTUS justices? There's nothing in the Constitution that says there can only be 9. There's a statute that says 9, but I'm not sure how that would stop the president and Senate from just appointing and confirming a few more.

Sure, why not? But no whining when the next Republican president decides to do the same thing.