Is it good to grow the SCOTUS?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dswoodley, Jul 26, 2007.

  1. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Jul 18, 2002
    From the NY Times

    Your thoughts? Time to grow the court?
  2. nbs2 macrumors 68030


    Mar 31, 2004
    A geographical oddity

    I think growing the Court could have disasterous consequences. After all, what is to stop each side from appointment enough justices to have a majority on "his side"? The slippery slope is just too risky.

    It should be pointed out that FDR's intent in expanding the court was to ensure that favorable legislation that was passed would not be held unconstitutional, and that the SCOTUS "adjusted" its position to ensure that the strength of the branch was not diluted. Sounds like something people would expect out of GWB.;)
  3. ham_man macrumors 68020


    Jan 21, 2005
    Nope. The SCOTUS has gotten to a point where the nine judges are a hallowed institution of American government. Any attempt to increase or decrease that number would be met with bipartisan fury.
  4. Queso Suspended

    Mar 4, 2006
    I'm obviously not an American so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but if Congress and the Senate vote accordingly can they not challenge a Supreme Court ruling?
  5. dswoodley thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jul 18, 2002
    Only by changing a law deemed unconstitutional or going through the constitutional ammendment process (involves state-by-state ratification).
  6. Queso Suspended

    Mar 4, 2006
    Ouch. I see how politicising it one way or another has such a big effect then. Thanks.
  7. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a


    Sep 18, 2006
    Agreed. I don't see it ever changing one way or another.
  8. SMM macrumors 65816


    Sep 22, 2006
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    I will take the minority opinion here. I do not think the Court enjoys the same respect it once did. It has become more of a public policy body, and is missing the boat on enforcing constitutional law. The lose of privacy and freedom, America has endured for much of the past 30 years, could not have taken place without the participation of the SC.

    As far as 'bipartisan fury', who cares? The republican congress stonewalled the Democrats attempts to appoint judges during President Clinton's terms in office. There were vacancies that went unfilled for years (as I recall). So, I really do not think there is going to be significantly more party fighting than there already is.
  9. hulugu macrumors 68000


    Aug 13, 2003
    quae tangit perit Trump
    I have to agree with SMM, the Supreme Court has refused to police the Constitution and has moved towards working as a political body—although this has been happening for decades.

    Furthermore, the treatment of Supreme Court justices as bishops in political endgames has withered the Court's reputation. The Court is supposed to be a 'sanity check' but it has just become an extension of each party's objectives.

Share This Page