Uhh

Dumbass incels. Of course we can add more justices. There were only 5 on the first SCOTUS.

Sources?

We do need 11 justices. And we need Trump to nominate the two new ones.

ABSOLUTE FPBP. Know your history and shit, and I know that feel amicus meus.

Attached: 1515103569317.jpg (986x1369, 878K)

;_;

I mean they cant just add more because it needs to be balanced... They'd need Trump to appoint them and no way in hell he puts two liberals. Dems would have to win election

It probably would be worthwhile to amend the Constitution to specify the number of justices.

You don't balance shit by adding more things REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: avengers-infinity-war-thanos-infinity-gauntlet-1018561-1280x0-650x363.jpg (650x363, 42K)

they should go fuck themselves

>mfw Trump agrees and adds two libertarian justices

It's about time that we recognized that libertarians are the new opposition party.

>Sulla
Please explain to a sub room temperature IQ

Just felt my dick swell at that thought. Goddamn can you imagine the salt?

Attached: mel_grin_1.jpg (650x1000, 221K)

The number of positions in the court isn't set by the constitution. Holding both houses would allow a party to increase the size as much as they want.

Similar thing for Congress itself, they could increase it to be 10000 member with a simple bill.

Brilliant, I say we go for it

Attached: E248FE69-3A8A-4F6A-AB80-55D1972FF953.png (343x432, 278K)

Yes but you still need the presidency to nominate so they'd have to win elections. Then Republican house and senate could change it back to 9

>justices aren’t supposed to have political biases
>we need to add two liberal justices
???

This says it all. Haha faggots btfo.

Attached: 0D978C00-C0E0-4E8D-8C42-9258F4E0E23B.jpg (999x700, 126K)

It would also be worthwhile to remove congress's pay from it's own legislative powers.

>they'd have to win elections
That's what they're talking about. When they regain power, they can expand the court with simple legislation.
>Then Republican house and senate could change it back to 9
You can't remove justices, so they'd have to wait until the court drops back down.

>Justice Kavenaugh is a rapist
>ok not a rapist but he hates being called a rapist
???

Sulla was the leader of the Optimates (the Roman Republics Traditionalist party) he was the rival of Julius Caesar's uncle Marius. Marius was an the leader of the populares (Rome progressive party). They were both dictators at different points and they rivalry destabilized the Republic. On the bright side Sulla was fucking great and brought the Optimates to the height of their power.

Attached: quote-no-friend-ever-served-me-and-no-enemy-ever-wronged-me-whom-i-have-not-repaid-in-full-sulla-65- (850x400, 43K)

The number of justices is not fixed. It started at 6.
> 1801 almost became 5
> 1802 back to 6
> 1807 went to 7
> 1837 it became 9
> 1863 it was 10
> 1869 became 9 again, which it has stayed ever since.

11 isn't unprecedented or unconstitutional.

nope KYS retarded kike

They are going to need more than 2 liberal justices if they really want to balance or take over.

We need an amendment, it should be locked for stability at this point. Do we have the states is the question

>on the news today trump appoints 3 more justices during his second term

Attached: 53f.jpg (196x250, 7K)

They can only approve who the presidents nominates. Trump has his court now, they can’t change that.

True, but unfortunately there's no one else to adequately handle it. The best compromise would be to leave salary, benefits, and congressional resource allocation to Congress, but instead of just waiting for an election to intervene before it can take effect, as is the case now, implement term limits and prohibit such legislation from applying to a congressman that votes for it. Any legislation only takes effect on entirely new legislators.

The should wish for a unicorn, too. If FDR couldn't do it in his time, no way in hell is it happening in a couple of years.

>Dems would have to win election
yeah and then pack the courts
hell, FDR got half his shit through congress by threatening to pack the courts....actually doing it? would lead to civil war
just face it lads, war is coming next presidential election time...no matter what happens

It's the motive that is a problem, and it's only precedent was with roosevelt where it failed. Adding more justices willy nilly would just lead to a scenario where whenever a president is elected with his party in majority, you would just double it +1 so the majority are all your personal picks.

The Republic is unfixably broken and the only way out is a dictator, but the first one we're going to get after the collapse is going to be a tyrant who restores order through a ruthless reign of terror. We will maintain the pretension that the republic can be restored following this, but the system, being completely rotted out, will again prove its inadequacy and more chaos will follow. Only at this point will a worthy Emperor seize the reins of power and deliver us, after millions have died

Because the point of the Supreme Court isn't to be balanced, it's to uphold the Constitution.

The problem is that states are seemingly unlikely (some have already) to call for an Article V convention because it's questionable such a convention could be limited in what amendments it proposes. Either way, it'd only take 34 to get one going, and 38 to pass amendments.

>democrats want to add two liberal judges
The only way they can do that is if ginsburg dies a violent poopy death and sotomayor is sacrificed to the dark lord beetus (no net gain) or they kill off a conservative justice (instant rope, just add traitor).

But the deep state needs a place where they can shove policies down people's throats!

(((THEY))) can't win by playing by the rule book so the rules must be changed. Sad.

I can see any of those happen. Democrats are murderers so they will do this as their last resorts.

Democrats still do not understand where "balance" applies and where it doesn't. If they want their extra representation on the supreme court they should have picked a better plan in 2012 and stuck to that instead.

This is the will of the voters at work, respect it and one day it will work in your favor.

I think you're right. If Trump wins, the three west coast states will try to break away. If the dems win, they will seek revenge by going after guns, churches, and whatever else they feel like causing red states to try and leave. We hate each other, now.

If we're talking about number of justices, Congress decides that.

Attached: Judiciary.png (896x632, 90K)

Its stayed that way ever since because they can't do it anymore. Its 9 till the end of the world look it up

In a constitutional convention, the House and the Senate have no power.

Instead all 50 state legislatures are given the power to amend the Constitution.

There is no limit or scope of the direction a constitutional convention could go in.

Not even the Supreme Court could interfere ein a constitutional convention.

The point of a Constitution convention is to be nearly shielded from interference the 3 branches while it is going on but President is usually the head of the convention.

It's neither unprecedented or unconstitutional, but 9 has become the number of custom, and custom can take on legal qualities. It has been nine for 150 years. The constitution didn't dictate term limits either, but it became precedent established by Washington, and wasn't formalized until 1951.

>So why don't we just do it first?
It *they* do it, they'll be legitimizing the Court.

But if *we* do it, we'll be delegitimizing it.

>clause written into law: "No take backs"

You sound scared bro

Two can play the court packing game. Just expand it to 15 the next election cycle afterwards if the GOP retakes control.

Court packing would effectively destroy SCOTUS as an institution. It would effectively become captive to the executive branch. The alternating reversals would most likely give way to other institutions like states simply ignoring SCOTUS rulings altogether.

I know. That's the problem. Some states are on board and have already applied for a convention, but it's hard to convince more moderate states to open such a convention.

Congress can't change the number anymore... for the love of god look it up

> 1 = 2
democrat thunking™

>To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem (good justice is broad jurisdiction), and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." - Thomas Jefferson

Remember guys, Thomas Jefferson wants us to fight back against the Unconstitutional Concept of Judicial Supremacy.

>Dems lose the house, senate, and presidency
>Refuse to acknowledge that their party is probably doing something wrong
>Demand more SCOTUS justices

We will see this November, but it seems likely.

Kek, mfw Mueller's report says that having a conservative court is collusion and we must remove Kavanaugh.

Attached: 1537718393905.png (1264x1348, 1.52M)

You'd need pretty susbstantial control to expand it. That's a dangerous game, and it does nothing about the decisions that would be issued in the democratic controlled years. It's safest to just amend the Constitution now.

Let's have 100 Supreme Court justices and have them pass legislation that the President then has to sign into law.

Funny thing is that many of the invited delegates to the first constitution couldn't show up in time, either to person reasons or travel time since roads were a shitty dirt and travel by horseback is exhausting.

The hard part is convincing the necessary number of states to begin the process of a convention but the states who do not take part, risk influence and power.

I bet if the necessary number of states is reached, the states that didn't feel like it, would immediately send delegates because they miss out on a lot of opportunity if they reject going to a constitutional convention.

exactly
the right spark in the right powder keg and this thing blows
also, china is about 5 minutes from economic disaster
that's not going to be fun...that war will spill all over the world as well

we're certainly living in interesting times

(15 fucking captchas!?!)

>the three west coast states
Oregon is Red as fuck except for the liberal poz cities of Portland, Salem and Ashland.

Attached: state_of_jefferson_border_patrol.jpg (1800x1200, 943K)

Why not elect a number of judges based on the population of the state and have them pass legislation that the other 100 judges have to pass that gets signed into law by the president?

(No liberal voter will understand this)

Who should we send to a convention.

I hope nobody sends a fucking law professor since they all seem to be Communists or Marxists these days.

Who would be a good delegate to send to a convention.

There's no restriction on who a state legislature would send.

Then
>Leftist: The Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage!!! Ha ha take that stupid bigots!!!

Now
>Leftist: OMG!!! Trump got to pick two Supreme Court justices!!! Add more liberal judges!!! Rig the court against the Right!!! OY VEY!!!!

Fpbp

> they will seek revenge by going after guns, churches, and whatever else they feel like causing red states to try and leave.

I think that's misleading in the sense that the majority of people see the left as batshit crazy right now. The left went too extreme pushing agendas in the early 2010's and 2016 campaign because they thought they had it in the bag, they pissed off a shit ton of their supporters and are trying to do damage control right now, refocus their agenda.

There's even articles about a significant number of People of Color openly supporting Trump in the past few months.

If the Dems came out in 2020 with the exact same agenda they brought in 2016, we are 100% going to get another 4 years of Trump.

That sounds great because tens of millions needs to die.

because doing what those faggot protestors want, or want the politicians that pander to those faggot protestors want, is always a fucking stupid idea

It's up to state legislatures what their delegations would be. Utah could send the LDS Church leadership if the legislature willed it.

I plan on using my savings to start an arms dealing business. Will sell to conservatives and liberals, blacks and whites, urban and rural residents alike... blood will be spilt, and I will profit. No better time to be a psychopath.

"Governments long established should not be altered for light or transient causes"

I know but like we have to accept that the IQ and education of any modern constitutional convention is much much lower than the Latin fluent delegates of the first convention.

I bet none would know how to write cursive anymore.

do you want a civil war or not? thats the question.

the only way we don't get 4 more years of Trump is if they manage to crash the economy (((and they're trying))) or rig the vote
but again, no matter how it turns out
war is coming very soon
even if the economy is booming when it hits
it's going to be hell for most idiots
peace keeps supply lines open and regular
war fucks that all up
we've grown far too comfy with peace in this country....lazily so
idiots are going to starve because they don't understand peace

California will offer Oregon and Washington some sweet deals to go with them. The pozzed cities would be enough.
The way reds and blues are divided up means a full out civil war would be a blood bath. The eastern sections of those states would immediately start fighting back.

Holy crap, this is genius
The Republicans should counter this by adding 100 of their own justices

I could see this happening. They are already going after papers like the Enquirer for being "biased and failing to provide accurate reporting" in regards to trump.

Not going to happen.
Anyone can increase the number of supreme court justices. It doesn't need to be dems. Nobody wants to be the guy who starts the game.

>Trump loses and dems add 1-2 more justices to keep it balanced
>eventually reps take over again
>add more justice to get the majority again
>and so on until there is an insane number of surpreme court justices
Do not open Pandoras Box

That's for sure. That fucker FDR almost packed the bench with 6 more justices of his choosing, so there would be 15 total justices. All that while being the only president to serve 4 terms (or 3 for that matter). Dude was a actual fascist

True, but more for the fact that that terrorization will be necessary to shatter our devotion to the plurality / democracy / republic meme. In our hearts we still mistrust absolutism, but once we truly understand what the alternative is we'll embrace it

2 liberal judges would never get through the process. Not with the current President and Senate. They’d have to be closer to centrists for Republicans and Democrats to agree.

Honestly, what would stop them from trying to add 2 more conservative judges. Let’s not forget one of the current liberal justices is so freaking old it’s laughable.

Parliamentary procedure is eroding in the senate to the point of collapse.

This would finish the collapse.

It started post-war, bit really ramped up this century where they stripped all need for anything more than 51 senators to pass basically anything.

The senate has an absurd amount of power, able to bottleneck everyone else to a standstill, and it was kept in check a lot by the 60 vote requirements and filibuster.

It forced in moderation just to do anything. But then the parties realized they didn't have to do anything, that they could literally do nothing out of spite. Then they realized they could force everyone else to do nothing out of even more spite.

Dems fucking with SCOTUS is just an extension if everyone fucking with the senate, but it'll fucking destroy the country.

The judiciary, the concept of anything being or not being constitutional would fold in on itself in the relative chaos of fluid and contradictory judiciary.

We'd be like the UK, where parliament can do literally anything it wants.

With the media fanning the flames for shekels, and every global power trying to wedge in their interests, it'd get violent quick.

And it'd be full throttle violence from the right, quick. The left would riot and have a basedboy tackle some congressmen. The right will have ptsd angry vets shooting congressmen.

Some fuckwit fatty shot up a congressional baseball game with no effort besides leaving the basement.

How hard would real violence against the political class be, if an actual dude wanted it and not a limp wristed commie?

We've got to be the most militarized and most armed populace in the history of the world.

The real violence will start targeting public officials.

The next civil war will start with assassinations, and end with new countries.

I don’t see why they would have thought an even number of justices was a good idea. What did they do if it was split? What was the tiebreaker?

When there's an even split in the supreme court, I think the decision of the lower court stands.

Brett "Big Dick" Kavanaugh confirms whites win

Attached: Not Comped.png (125x125, 3K)

We need to send Alex Jones and styxhexenhammer for sure

Have you ever even had comped sushi?

I like tacos

It would radicalize the opposing side to an extreme.

Why didnt Obama add two conservative judges?
Bush added one liberal judge, seems fair.

Judicial review isn't supremacy, its really the only way the judicial branch is "Co-equal and co-sovereign" of the constitution.

All 3 branches have to ultimately agree that a federal law is constitutional, the legislature and executive do so when they write, approve of, and pass the law; the judiciary when it doesn't burn it down.

Without judicial review, democrats 2008-2010 would have been sole arbiters of what the constitution meant.

There's be no long term accountability, the ability to redefine the constitution changing potentially every 4 years.

SCOTUS shifts so slowly, and has such a highly selective process for membership, that we can count on constitutional concepts staying for generations, and only moving by degrees.

SCOTUS members basically have to serve 20+ years as judges working up ever more selective positions, where they have to make fairly plain and explained decisions. Unlike the obfuscation and weaseling of politicians, their records actually demonstrate well who they are and who is getting the SCOTUS seat. You'll get black cowboy hat lady in congress. And you'll get vastly different world views in SCOTUS. But it won't be completely insane nignogs who start dancing during a hearing. You're practically guaranteed someone capable of thought, reason, and who has avoided corruption.