Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

lees1975

(3,891 posts)

4. It's the current Judiciary Act which authorizes the existence of the Supreme Court and prescribes the number of

Reply to Srkdqltr (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 26, 2024, 03:25 PM

Apr 26

justices. That would have to be amended. To do so would require a majority vote of the senate, which means the filibuster would have to be abolished, so that the act could be amended. Then, once the number of judges has been amended, the President's appointments could be voted in by a simple majority.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It's time to pack the Supreme Court. And I think that might be possible. [View all] lees1975 Apr 26 OP

Who can do this? is the writer in a position to put all this in place? Srkdqltr Apr 26 #1

It's the current Judiciary Act which authorizes the existence of the Supreme Court and prescribes the number of lees1975 Apr 26 #4

My point exactly. It sounds good but the reality of it changing anytime soon is not. Srkdqltr Apr 26 #6

All it takes is majorities in both houses, and a Dem in the WH Fiendish Thingy Apr 26 #14

You think Whirmer? Wouldn't that be excellent. Can't we keep her in Michigan? Srkdqltr Apr 26 #15

Whitmer has governed progressively without fear or hesitation, and with the slimmest of majorities Fiendish Thingy Apr 26 #18

It will then end up in the courts Wednesdays Apr 26 #16

Nope Fiendish Thingy Apr 26 #17

We need 51 or more votes in the senate IbogaProject Apr 26 #20

Are you saying we should give up Iwasthere Apr 26 #9

No. It should be done. But the author offers no direction. Change is always Srkdqltr Apr 26 #12

This could be done now. lees1975 Apr 26 #19

That opportunity was lost in 2016. 33taw Apr 26 #2

Thank you, your post answered many of my questions. n/t SheilaAnn Apr 26 #3

Delusion and fantasy bucolic_frolic Apr 26 #5

People who want this had better stop using the word "pack". Mister Ed Apr 26 #7

Agree leftieNanner Apr 26 #8

Agree heartily. The court's already been packed via extreme partisan action. n/t Beartracks Apr 26 #10

We need to "unpack the court", that is to expand the court. Earth-shine Apr 28 #23

I think that it's time. This particular 'packed' court is standing in the way of true justice, by kneeling at djt's SWBTATTReg Apr 26 #11

I believe this court is absolutely capable of handing it to tRump in November Iwasthere Apr 26 #13

I like Pete Buttigieg's Proposal oldguy_tls Apr 26 #21

please say expand the court. it is already packed prodigitalson Apr 27 #22

Integrity demands this. lees1975 Apr 28 #24