primitives discuss the limits

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025166593

Oh my.

wildbilln864 (11,528 posts)    Sun Jun 29, 2014, 12:40 PM

What is the limit on how many justices sit on the supreme court?

and where is that limit law written?

Was curious if anyone knows. Thanks in advance.

leftstreet (25,775 posts)   Sun Jun 29, 2014, 12:43 PM

1. None. It's up to Congress

malthaussen (4,301 posts)    Sun Jun 29, 2014, 12:45 PM

3. Article III of the United States Constitution

Provides for the establishment of the Supreme Court.

The number of justices was fixed at nine by the Judiciary Act of 1869. As the number is not set it the Constitution, it has varied by statute (and could thus be theoretically changed by statute in the future).

H2O Man (49,805 posts)    Sun Jun 29, 2014, 12:51 PM

5. Right.

The last person who wanted to change it was FDR. That's considered his greatest error by many historians.

truebluegreen (4,635 posts)    Sun Jun 29, 2014, 02:59 PM

7. OTOH, the threat of adding seats worked

and the Court stopped declaring all of his new programs unconstitutional.

SheilaT (15,121 posts)    Sun Jun 29, 2014, 12:46 PM

4. Here's something from Wikipedia.

Article III of the United States Constitution leaves it to Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.
 
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine, where it has since remained.
 
Plus of course FDR tried to pack the court because he was pissed off at the current members, but got nowhere with that plan.
 
We've had nine justices for so long that it's a pretty holy number.

[Carl]

The Court is only of potential use to leftists under our current civil system.
If Obumbles was to declare himself dictator and could make it happen the DUmbasses would be looking to dissolve the Court overnight.

[miskie]

Sorry DUmmies -

The Hobby Lobby decision is now 'settled law' - so you need to shut the hell up and take it.   

[franksolich]

Sorry DUmmies -

The Hobby Lobby decision is now 'settled law' - so you need to shut the hell up and take it.   

I dunno what the primitives are whining about.

I don't see where this ruling affects a woman's "right to choose" in any way, shape, or form; I'll bet the abortion profiteers are just as busy today, Monday, as they'd been last Friday.

Ho-hum.  It's no big deal, primitives.

[miskie]

I dunno what the primitives are whining about.

I don't see where this ruling affects a woman's "right to choose" in any way, shape, or form; I'll bet the abortion profiteers are just as busy today, Monday, as they'd been last Friday.

Ho-hum.  It's no big deal, primitives.

Exactly right -

This decision changes NOTHING in the world of available contraception methods and devices. Its all still legal and for sale, however small businesses run by conscientious objectors are no longer required to pay for it. What an employee at one of these places decides to do with the money they earn was never in contention.

Anyone who wants contraception can walk into any Walmart, Walgreen's or Planned Parenthood and get what they want.

But the MSM and the primitives are going to play it as another blow landed by those damn dirty rethugs in the "War on Women".

[Carl]

Ocare was 900 pages of poorly thought out law and little more then pandering to the young,particularly women.

[vesta111]

Exactly right -

This decision changes NOTHING in the world of available contraception methods and devices. Its all still legal and for sale, however small businesses run by conscientious objectors are no longer required to pay for it. What an employee at one of these places decides to do with the money they earn was never in contention.

Anyone who wants contraception can walk into any Walmart, Walgreen's or Planned Parenthood and get what they want.

But the MSM and the primitives are going to play it as another blow landed by those damn dirty rethugs in the "War on Women".

The war on woman is a joke.    1966, I could not work overtime as I was a female.   For my protection.    Could not get a job at GE until I had a physical to show that at that time I was not pregnant.    For my protection.

So many laws are passed for the protection of people, male and female that end up ham strung  but--- it is for their protection.

What happened to the laws of self inflicted problems, drink too much, eat too much, get some kind of STD's,  end up in jail for belting the wife between the running lights.    Do we expect our employers to  give us time off with pay to fix our problem ?

Reality is it is a woman's choice today to become pregnant or not.   If she wishes to work that is her choice. Why pay her for making a personal choice ?  She has the choice to work over time, and come back to work a week after the birth if she wishes.

  I hear now the father and mother  of the baby wants 3 months salary to Bond with his child. How is this any ones business but their own,   why put this on the employer, they had nothing to do with any of this ?

Unless this pregnancy can be proved to be a work place accident,  perhaps a OSHA accident of some sort,  or a rape in an unsafe area of a business and the employer was aware of the danger, I see no reason any employer should do more them to pay someone for a days work and let their insurance pick up the tab.      AFLACK

[diesel driver]

The war on woman is a joke.    1966, I could not work overtime as I was a female.   For my protection.    Could not get a job at GE until I had a physical to show that at that time I was not pregnant.    For my protection.

So many laws are passed for the protection of people, male and female that end up ham strung  but--- it is for their protection.

What happened to the laws of self inflicted problems, drink too much, eat too much, get some kind of STD's,  end up in jail for belting the wife between the running lights.    Do we expect our employers to  give us time off with pay to fix our problem ?

Reality is it is a woman's choice today to become pregnant or not.   If she wishes to work that is her choice. Why pay her for making a personal choice ?  She has the choice to work over time, and come back to work a week after the birth if she wishes.

  I hear now the father and mother  of the baby wants 3 months salary to Bond with his child. How is this any ones business but their own,   why put this on the employer, they had nothing to do with any of this ?

Unless this pregnancy can be proved to be a work place accident,  perhaps a OSHA accident of some sort,  or a rape in an unsafe area of a business and the employer was aware of the danger, I see no reason any employer should do more them to pay someone for a days work and let their insurance pick up the tab.      AFLACK

   Bravo, vesta!

What you just posted made more sense than anything we'll hear for the next 6 months from the Barry Admin and the MSM.

[BlueStateSaint]

  Bravo, vesta!

What you just posted made more sense than anything we'll hear for the next 6 months from the Barry Admin and the MSM.

She just earned an H5 from me for her post.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Ocare was 900 pages of poorly thought out law and little more then pandering to the young,particularly women.

Except for the part that screwed the young employed men, by putting most of the bill for the whole thing on them.