“May have just legalized murder by one individual”: Experts alarmed at “stunning” SCOTUS ruling - eviltoast
  • APassenger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.