| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2007 11:03:20 AM |
| Object: |
Stacking the Court |
Op-Ed Contributor
Stacking the Court
By JEAN EDWARD SMITH
Huntington, W.Va.
WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly
ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American
politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice
Felix Frankfurter once called the ³political thicket,² it may require
a political solution to set it straight.
The framers of the Constitution did not envisage the Supreme Court as
arbiter of all national issues. As Chief Justice John Marshall made
clear in Marbury v. Madison, the courtıs authority extends only to
legal issues.
When the court overreaches, the Constitution provides checks and
balances. In 1805, after persistent political activity by Justice
Samuel Chase, Congress responded with its power of impeachment. Chase
was acquitted, but never again did he step across the line to mingle
law and politics. After the Civil War, when a Republican Congress
feared the court might tamper with Reconstruction in the South, it
removed those questions from the courtıs appellate jurisdiction.
But the method most frequently employed to bring the court to heel
has been increasing or decreasing its membership. The size of the
Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution. It is determined by
Congress.
The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six.
When the Federalists were defeated in 1800, the lame-duck Congress
reduced the size of the court to five hoping to deprive President
Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democratic Congress
repealed the Federalist measure (leaving the number at six), and then
in 1807 increased the size of the court to seven, giving Jefferson an
additional appointment.
In 1837, the number was increased to nine, affording the Democrat
Andrew Jackson two additional appointments. During the Civil War, to
insure an anti-slavery, pro-Union majority on the bench, the court
was increased to 10. When a Democrat, Andrew Johnson, became
president upon Lincolnıs death, a Republican Congress voted to reduce
the size to seven (achieved by attrition) to guarantee Johnson would
have no appointments.
After Ulysses S. Grant was elected in 1868, Congress restored the
court to nine. That gave Grant two new appointments. The court had
just declared unconstitutional the governmentıs authority to issue
paper currency (greenbacks). Grant took the opportunity to appoint
two justices sympathetic to the administration. When the
reconstituted court convened, it reheard the legal tender cases and
reversed its decision (5-4).
The most recent attempt to alter the size of the court was by
Franklin Roosevelt in 1937. But instead of simply requesting that
Congress add an additional justice or two, Rooseveltıs convoluted
scheme fooled no one and ultimately sank under its own weight.
Roosevelt claimed the justices were too old to keep up with the
workload, and urged that for every justice who reached the age of 70
and did not retire within six months, the president should be able to
appoint a younger justice to help out. Six of the Supreme Court
justices in 1937 were older than 70. But the court was not behind in
its docket, and Rooseveltıs subterfuge was exposed. In the Senate,
the president could muster only 20 supporters.
Still, there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices on the
Supreme Court. Rooseveltıs 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a
bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition
participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike.
If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at
popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress
could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both
houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his
conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll
call of presidents who have used this option includes not just
Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26smith.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&o
ref=slogin&adxnnlx=1185465662-aC4JjdI7z9rdOVi4IJ3OIA
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
.
|
|
| User: "Zippy P" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking the Court |
26 Jul 2007 08:36:23 PM |
|
|
very true, there's nothing stopping the legislature from adding more supreme
court justices. Except political pressure. I think it would be a neat
change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GeekBoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking the Court |
26 Jul 2007 11:21:48 PM |
|
|
"Zippy P" <dsdd@zongo.com> wrote in message
news:p_bqi.86$591.6@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
very true, there's nothing stopping the legislature from adding more
supreme
court justices. Except political pressure. I think it would be a neat
change.
Actually there is.
In Article 3 it says that the SC is the final interpreters of the document.
Nothing says they have to interpret it correctly.
All they have to say is "We find it Unconstitutional for congress to adjust
the number of justices"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zippy P" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking the Court |
27 Jul 2007 06:15:07 AM |
|
|
Actually there is.
In Article 3 it says that the SC is the final interpreters of the
document.
Nothing says they have to interpret it correctly.
All they have to say is "We find it Unconstitutional for congress to
adjust
the number of justices"
Umm.. can you point to the specific language that says the sup ct is the
"final interpreter" of the constitution? I'm failing to see it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking the Court |
27 Jul 2007 10:13:18 AM |
|
|
"Zippy P" <dsdd@zongo.com> wrote in news:Zskqi.120$ER7.67
@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
Actually there is.
In Article 3 it says that the SC is the final interpreters of the
document.
Nothing says they have to interpret it correctly.
All they have to say is "We find it Unconstitutional for congress to
adjust
the number of justices"
Umm.. can you point to the specific language that says the sup ct is the
"final interpreter" of the constitution? I'm failing to see it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3
Squint hard. Still can't see it?
Read Marbury v Madison.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking the Court |
27 Jul 2007 06:21:26 AM |
|
|
On Jul 27, 7:15 am, "Zippy P" <d...@zongo.com> wrote:
Actually there is.
In Article 3 it says that the SC is the final interpreters of the
document.
Nothing says they have to interpret it correctly.
All they have to say is "We find it Unconstitutional for congress to
adjust
the number of justices"
Umm.. can you point to the specific language that says the sup ct is the
"final interpreter" of the constitution? I'm failing to see it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3
http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/4/652?etoc
This process is intensely political and, as such, it reflects the
Supreme Court's broad authority as the final interpreter of the
Constitution,
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=679&chapter=68539&layout=html
The Supreme Court As Final Interpreter
And just think...it only took me 10 seconds to find that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking the Court |
27 Jul 2007 06:08:24 AM |
|
|
In article <p_bqi.86$591.6@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Zippy P" <dsdd@zongo.com> wrote:
very true, there's nothing stopping the legislature from adding more supreme
court justices. Except political pressure. I think it would be a neat
change.
in a way, i'm surprised they haven't already done it.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
