Ruth Bader Ginsberg has cancer again

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
Fight the good fight, Ruth! Hang in there, Justice Bader-Ginsberg - your country needs you now more than ever! And, "Sto Lat" - may you live a hundred years!
 

cbenoi1

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
977
Location
Canada
Wishing her the best of health, and not just because the prospect of her leaving the court before next Jan is a terrifying prospect.

There is the "McConnell rule", remember?

Oh wait...

-cb
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,775
Reaction score
6,482
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
There is the "McConnell rule", remember?

Oh wait...

-cb
He's already made excuses why this time is different. The Democrats need to threaten to expand the court as was done in the past when the GOP stacked the court.

LiveScience
However, it turns out, the original 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. But things didn't stay that way for long.

"The number of Supreme Court justices has changed over the years," Kathy Arberg, spokesperson for the U.S. Supreme Court, told Live Science. "The number of justices has been as high as 10." [8 Supreme Court Decisions that Changed US Families]

Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, then 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 budged since.
I guess it will depend on that Act being revised.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,778
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
He's already made excuses why this time is different. The Democrats need to threaten to expand the court as was done in the past when the GOP stacked the court.

LiveScience
I guess it will depend on that Act being revised.

Of FDR couldn't manage it, I have trouble seeing how any current Democrats could, especially given the current makeup of Congress.

I feel for RBG. She's denied herself a retirement, or even the opportunity to fight a life-threatening disease in peace, and she's doing it for us.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,775
Reaction score
6,482
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Some promising news, a couple of Republicans have a conscience.

Two GOP Senators Oppose Filling Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020

Murkowski and Grassley.

... At the time, the Senate Majority Leader argued that confirming Garland in an election year would be undemocratic, as it would deny “the American people” a chance to “have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.” But as Ginsburg’s health woes have fueled speculation about a potential vacancy in 2020, McConnell has refined this principle, explaining that it is only wrong to confirm a Supreme Court justice in an election year when the White House and Senate are controlled by different parties.
Wonder how long it took him to come up with that excuse?:rolleyes:

I am so glad some Democrats are showing some courage:
But not everyone in McConnell’s caucus is onboard for such a power grab. And Democrats are warning that if the Senate Majority Leader breaks his own rule, he’ll find that his judicial legacy is more vulnerable to change than he’d wagered....

...McConnell’s 53-seat majority gives him room to lose Murkowski, Grassley, and one more protest vote and still secure a justice’s confirmation (as Mike Pence would break any 50-50 tie).
One would think Romney could be persuaded to vote down a rushed nominee. And maybe Collins might try to redeem herself.

... But internal dissent isn’t the only hitch in McConnell’s plan for entrenching Republican dominance of the judicial branch. In the wake of Garland’s defeat, Trump’s victory, and the ensuing blitzkrieg of far-right judicial appointments, progressive groups began organizing behind judicial reform. Their efforts led multiple Democratic primary candidates to endorse adding justices to the Supreme Court.


This part I don't get though. Can someone explain:
If the confirmation of conservative justice this year doesn’t provoke Democratic court-packing in 2021, it could result in California nullifying Supreme Court rulings by decade’s end.