United States | News & Politics

4254 readers

341 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules:

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No pics of text

Memes are now allowed, as long as they're US centric, general political memes please see !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca

Post news related to the United States.

No NYPost, Breitbart, Daily Mail, Daily Wire

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

exposingfash@midwest.social

cm0002@infosec.pub

cm0002@lemy.lol

House Democrats block constitutional amendment to lock Supreme Court at 9 justices (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by cm0002@infosec.pub to c/usa@midwest.social

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The vote was 212-206. All but one Democrat voted against it, as openness within the party to expand the high court by four seats grows.

The joint resolution, offered by Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., calls for amending the Constitution to say: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.”

The office of House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., encouraged lawmakers to vote “no,” saying the amendment would take away a power intended for Congress and do nothing to address the “affordability crisis” under President Donald Trump.

“This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, stripping Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives,” Clark’s office wrote to lawmakers Wednesday ahead of the vote

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gastroglizzy@piefed.social 34 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Term limits. Expand the court.

There were originally nine justices, one for each of the nine court circuits. There are now 13 (ish?) circuits. Increasing the number of justices isn't some radical idea that came from nowhere, it merely aligns us with the original convention.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

To add to this, each circuit requires an SC justice to be its "circuit justice". Any "emergency" applications coming out of a circuit are addressed to the circuit justice individually, who can then make fast decisions as necessary. Any five votes on the court can then overrule anything a circuit justice does.

Anyhow, right now some justices have to do double duty on more than one circuit. So there is some kind of real impact to their workload that we could fix with 13 justices.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Term limits require an amendment, which is impossible in the current national climate. Expanding the court is just passing a law. So, win both chambers, eliminate the filibuster and expand the court to 15 seats. Maybe increase the House to over 1,000 members while you’re at it — effectively destroying any issues with the Electoral college and somewhat with gerrymandering.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 9 points 2 weeks ago

Expand the court and remove the Permanent Apportionment act of 1929 that makes the House a defacto second Senate and disenfranchises a majority of the country. That artificially low limit of 435 across 300+ million people (based on nothing but the fact that's how many House members there were at the time) is what makes gerrymandering so effective.

The House should have roughly 1500 members to have effective representation. That's one representative per roughly 200k people. At the moment we're at 670k average per representative, and that's not at all consistent across the country.