this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
874 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19239 readers
3850 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] APassenger 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

If there were 5 justices, they'd still be functional. As proven in the past, there's no requirement for 9.

Esit: I'd - > If

[–] disguy_ovahea 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It changed size six times before settling on nine Justices in 1869. Each time it was determined by a congressional vote. It’s not up to POTUS, it’s up to Congress.

[–] APassenger 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It ran at 8 for quite a while. No one's legitimately saying those decisions don't count.

The official number can be whatever. Congress doesn't get to nominate. And SCOTUS would keep deciding.

[–] disguy_ovahea 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do you understand that Congress needs to vote on the number of Justices?

I’m not talking about the vote on the nominee, but the actual number of Justices.

It is currently nine, and will remain nine, until Congress votes on a different number.

[–] APassenger 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not the one being slow. SCOTUS had 8 people while McConnell held up Garland.

Officially SCOTUS was and is nine people. But if the wheels of government turn slow enough, SCOTUS continues to do its job with whoever has made it through the process.

Officially 9, it functioned with 8. No one is credibly saying all those decisions must be thrown out or that SCOTUS cannot function during a shortage.

If that shortage was 4, people would be vocal. But legally, it would still be functional.

I not talking about changing the official number. I never did in this thread until you did.

[–] disguy_ovahea 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You started this conversation by suggesting Biden “packs the Supreme Court.”

There are no vacancies. That means congressional vote to increase the number of Justices.

[–] APassenger 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] disguy_ovahea 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That was the start of this thread. I’m sorry I didn’t notice you were a different commenter.

[–] APassenger 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No worries. Have absolutely done the same in the past.

And I'll take the moment to salute your reliance on fact and citation. Wish more people did the same.

Cheers

[–] disguy_ovahea 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

With the excessive misinformation out there, we need to work together to get to the truth. Thank you for being so understanding about my mistake.

Have a good night.