Loading...
Title : "I think the Commission's summary of the case against court-packing (pp. 79-84) includes much stronger arguments than its overview of the case for it (pp. 74-79)."
link : "I think the Commission's summary of the case against court-packing (pp. 79-84) includes much stronger arguments than its overview of the case for it (pp. 74-79)."
"I think the Commission's summary of the case against court-packing (pp. 79-84) includes much stronger arguments than its overview of the case for it (pp. 74-79)."
"But then again, I myself am a longtime opponent of the idea. Readers can judge the arguments in the report for themselves. The report does reject arguments that court-packing is unconstitutional, such as that advanced in co-blogger Randy Barnett's testimony before the Commission (see also Joshua Braver's response to Randy here). The Commission's conclusion on this point reflects the dominant view among legal scholars, though Randy and Michael Rappaport have offered serious arguments on the other side. I wish they were right, but so far remain unpersuaded."I'm reading "Biden Supreme Court Commission Issues Final Report/The report doesn't endorse court-packing or term limits. But it's generally more to the latter than the former. It also provides valuable overview of a wide range of SCOTUS-related issues" — by Ilya Somin (at Reason).
If Court-packing ever happens, it will be the Supreme Court that decides whether Court-packing is unconstitutional, and if this happens soon, with the current configuration of the Court, I doubt that "the dominant view among legal scholars" will matter much.
I feel like quoting the Thoreau adage again — last quoted 10 days ago — "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already." In this light, Randy Barnett is the majority. Or will be to any Supreme Court that finds itself on the receiving end of a packing plan.
It is the Necessary and Proper Clause, which empowers Congress to make a law that is necessary and proper to carry into execution the judicial power that Article III vests in the judicial department.
Article III does not specify the size of the Court, but for the past one hundred and fifty-two years, a nine-member Supreme Court has become an entrenched constitutional norm. To change the Norm of Nine, Congress needs to pass a new law. According to the letter of the Constitution, any such law must be both "necessary" and "proper."... A law must have an appropriate "end" or "object" and "the means" it adopts must be sufficiently related to that end....
Having set the number of justices, Congress may not then enact a law to change that number for the illegitimate end of affecting how the Court rules....
While Congress has the constitutional duty to staff the Supreme Court with multiple justices, it is improper for Congress to use its power to set the number of justices for the end of affecting the decisions of the Court....
Suppose Congress passes a law stating that, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, there shall be created three new Supreme Court justice positions which can be filled immediately by President Biden. If your theory of Congress's power to set the number of judges cannot say why such a law is unconstitutional, there is something wrong with your theory....
Loading...
"But then again, I myself am a longtime opponent of the idea. Readers can judge the arguments in the report for themselves. The report does reject arguments that court-packing is unconstitutional, such as that advanced in co-blogger Randy Barnett's testimony before the Commission (see also Joshua Braver's response to Randy here). The Commission's conclusion on this point reflects the dominant view among legal scholars, though Randy and Michael Rappaport have offered serious arguments on the other side. I wish they were right, but so far remain unpersuaded."
I'm reading "Biden Supreme Court Commission Issues Final Report/The report doesn't endorse court-packing or term limits. But it's generally more to the latter than the former. It also provides valuable overview of a wide range of SCOTUS-related issues" — by Ilya Somin (at Reason).
I'm reading "Biden Supreme Court Commission Issues Final Report/The report doesn't endorse court-packing or term limits. But it's generally more to the latter than the former. It also provides valuable overview of a wide range of SCOTUS-related issues" — by Ilya Somin (at Reason).
If Court-packing ever happens, it will be the Supreme Court that decides whether Court-packing is unconstitutional, and if this happens soon, with the current configuration of the Court, I doubt that "the dominant view among legal scholars" will matter much.
I feel like quoting the Thoreau adage again — last quoted 10 days ago — "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already." In this light, Randy Barnett is the majority. Or will be to any Supreme Court that finds itself on the receiving end of a packing plan.
It is the Necessary and Proper Clause, which empowers Congress to make a law that is necessary and proper to carry into execution the judicial power that Article III vests in the judicial department.
Article III does not specify the size of the Court, but for the past one hundred and fifty-two years, a nine-member Supreme Court has become an entrenched constitutional norm. To change the Norm of Nine, Congress needs to pass a new law. According to the letter of the Constitution, any such law must be both "necessary" and "proper."... A law must have an appropriate "end" or "object" and "the means" it adopts must be sufficiently related to that end....
Having set the number of justices, Congress may not then enact a law to change that number for the illegitimate end of affecting how the Court rules....
While Congress has the constitutional duty to staff the Supreme Court with multiple justices, it is improper for Congress to use its power to set the number of justices for the end of affecting the decisions of the Court....
Suppose Congress passes a law stating that, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, there shall be created three new Supreme Court justice positions which can be filled immediately by President Biden. If your theory of Congress's power to set the number of judges cannot say why such a law is unconstitutional, there is something wrong with your theory....
Thus articles "I think the Commission's summary of the case against court-packing (pp. 79-84) includes much stronger arguments than its overview of the case for it (pp. 74-79)."
that is all articles "I think the Commission's summary of the case against court-packing (pp. 79-84) includes much stronger arguments than its overview of the case for it (pp. 74-79)." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "I think the Commission's summary of the case against court-packing (pp. 79-84) includes much stronger arguments than its overview of the case for it (pp. 74-79)." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/12/i-think-commissions-summary-of-case.html
0 Response to ""I think the Commission's summary of the case against court-packing (pp. 79-84) includes much stronger arguments than its overview of the case for it (pp. 74-79).""
Post a Comment