The people will support whatever CNN tells them to, which will be whatever CCP tells it to. But they'll have to override a filibuster and somehow convince the supreme court that it's constitutional to pack that court. SCOTUS doesn't serve at the pleasure of Congress.
-
-
Replying to @jcrichman @PstafarianPrice
they could just nuke the filibuster. i can see manchin cracking
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @PstafarianPrice
We all know there's an endpoint to the discussion that makes the idea extremely bad for Democrats, but I'm convinced it would end up in front of the court first. One injunction and boom.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jcrichman @PstafarianPrice
could the supreme court rule against . . . expanding the supreme court?
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
I don't see how? The number on the Court is pretty clearly up to Congress. The real issue is getting Manchin *and* Sinema to fold on the filibuster, both knowing that the moment they do, the pressure to pass this and every other progressive policy jumps tenfold.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Far as I know, literally nothing in the Constitution says that Congress can decide on a whim how many justices sit on the court. That's just something the left says when they want to overthrow democracy.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
article iii is a little murky but I think historical precedent (many changes in court count, we started with six and hit ten at one point) suggests there's no constitutional difficulty unless the court makes one up out of whole cloth
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
That's what the left keeps saying, except to my knowledge there's never been a situation where changing the Supreme Court size was used to override that Court. Or put another way, I don't know of a time when the Court would have objected.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
there was the Switch in Time in the 30s :/ i think they would have objected, and then been steamrolled
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I don't really know what the objection would be? What's the grounds for the Court to suddenly decide that it alone has powered to select it's size, when it has been the purview of Congress since 1789?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
im sure they could find something in Wickard v Fulham
-
-
Good luck getting Thomas on board with that.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.