Reply With Quote
I have a law:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869
That determines the composition of the SCOTUS in its last iteration. Meaning, the president can only nominate when there’s a vacancy.
well that's reliable
it would be like finding an imaginary needle in a haystackFinding it would be like finding a needle in a haystack, tbh.
I have a law:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869
That determines the composition of the SCOTUS in its last iteration. Meaning, the president can only nominate when there’s a vacancy.
In theory, and theory only, the POTUS could increment the size of of the SCOTUS composition, creating new vacancies, however, it would be quite the affront to separation of powers.
An alternative route would be for Congress to do that (like the attempt to expand it to 15, which failed)
you can go further back. that's been the case since the original judiciary act of 1789 (though you noted you were only referring to the last iteration)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789
there have since been various judiciary acts changing the size of the supreme court, i posted those instances in my last post
i was mistaken when i referred to it as an unwritten rule to only nominate during a vacancy
The law only determines the eight associate justice / chief justice model. It says nothing on guaranteeing life terms. And if anything, it just s on Lite's idea that an eleventh judge could be appointed (short of overturning that law). The wording is too ambiguous to know if it also s on his idea that a tenth judge good be appointed.
The word "vacancy" is not attributed in the Cons ution or law to prohibit the president from nominating a new judge. Nor are SC justices given life terms. The president's options are very solid when it comes to this. Again, I believe only Dems would ever be audacious enough to try this within say the next twenty years.no, it just says the president can nominate more justices. SCOTUS originally only had 6 members. and therefore required 4 votes to reach a decision..
congress has passed laws to increase/decrease the size of the court.
the jefferson administration added a 7th justice in 1807.
an 8th and 9th justice were added under the jackson adminstration in 1837
a 10th was added by lincoln in 1863
the court size eventually was reduced to 7 (law passed stating the next 3 justices to retire would not be replaced). but then in 1869 it bumped back up to 9.
FDR wanted to up the number to 15 so he could pack the court, congress didn't go along with it
it's directly from the US Cons ution... article 3 section 1
The part of the Cons ution that sets up the judicial clearly states the term of judgeships. ‘In good behavior’ has historically meant a life tenure. More pointedly, there’s no mechanism expressed on the Cons ution by which the executive can fire a judge.
Article 1 makes explicit that impeachment of a judge is an exclusive attribute of the legislative branch.
i acknowledged that error in my last post. cons utionally speaking, there is no limit on SCOTUS size. but the cons ution allows congress to pass laws organizing the judiciary, including SCOTUS size. that was an aside, regardless.
there is no authority by which the president can remove or replace a sitting justice. you still haven't provided any. all you've shown is that the president has the authority to nominate justices. which they do all the time. nobody else has the power to fill SCOTUS seats.
You’re missing this has already been tried, and the only way to do it that’s not a direct violation of separation of powers is through Congress. The last attempt failed.
Of course there is. In fact, the president is the only person with the authority to do nominations. You are essentially arguing that SCJ's have life appointments. They simply don't. We're not "stuck" with them (except we are in reality).
The president has no authority to remove a judge. Article 1 specifically grants that process to Congress through impeachment. The only minor tweak to the process is that the House can start the process with a simple majority vote.
As evidenced by you citing no details for this claim.
You're using impeachment and removal as interchangeable terms; they're not.
yes, the president can nominate justices. nobody else can. this is how it's always worked. but that doesn't come attached with the power to fire people that are currently sitting on the bench.
of course i am. they do have life appointments, unless they're impeached. that's why article 3 of the cons ution says the serve during good behavior.You are essentially arguing that SCJ's have life appointments.
see above.They simply don't. We're not "stuck" with them (except we are in reality).
Post #51 in this thread. I can gladly cite Impeachment proceedings and the number of judges impeached if you’re keen to know.As evidenced by you citing no details for this claim.
Of course they are. Impeachment *is* the name of the process to remove a government official, including the POTUS.
We're not talking historically; we're talking legally. I get that the life seat custom has been observed.
No. Impeachment is based upon criminal or treasonous behavior; and it applies to removal of fulfillment for all federal positions including in futurity. Removal is simply that; removal.
We’re talking logically too. Look, if presidents could just switch justices at will, they wouldn’t have tried to change the number of judges 5 or so times. What would be he point to that?
It’s just like people ing about the militia term in the 2nd amendment, the book was written long ago, but there’s plenty of judicial precedent on its interpretation
if presidents could just fire justices at will, it would also destroy the checks and balances/separation of power as well.
the lifetime term of judicial branch appointees is also their main balance tbh
Impeachable offenses. The Cons ution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
Of course there needs to be a basis for removal. That’s exactly why the president also can’t be removed from office in a whim. It’s called separation of powers and checks and balances.
The POTUS can nominate judges that can only be confirmed by the Senate, and only Congress and themselves have the ability to remove them (Congress due to misbehavior, themselves due to death or retirement).
Forgot to highlight ‘impeach and remove’... but you get the gist
can you imagine if obama took office and proceeded to instantly fire scalia/alito/roberts/thomas/kennedy
Imagine if he replaced Scalia with Ocasio-Cortezcan you imagine if obama took office and proceeded to instantly fire scalia/alito/roberts/thomas
I think Spurtacular (and maybe Trump) are thinking Monarchy... there’s the king then everyone else below. Here we have 3 co-equal branches of government.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions