Rubio to introduce legislation to keep Supreme Court at 9 seats
"To prevent the delegitimizing of the Supreme Court, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to keep the number of seats at nine,"
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Wednesday he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment to limit the Supreme Court to nine justices after some Democrats have floated expanding the number of seats on the high court.
"To prevent the delegitimizing of the Supreme Court, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to keep the number of seats at nine," Rubio wrote in a Fox News op-ed published Wednesday.
"There is nothing magical about the number nine. It is not inherently right just because the number of seats on the Supreme Court remains unchanged since 1869. But there is something inherently good and important about preventing the further destabilization of essential institutions," Rubio added.
The proposal comes as several Democratic White House contenders, including a handful that are Rubio's Senate colleagues, have expressed an openness to expanding the Supreme Court or enacting other judicial reforms, including term limits.
Both Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have said expanding, or "packing," the court should be an option on the table as part of a larger conversation among Democrats about the direction of the U.S. judicial system.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) told "Pod Save America" that the idea was “interesting” and she would “need to think more about it.”
Supporters argue that President Trump and congressional Republicans have been able to pack the courts with conservative judges, including two Supreme Court justices and dozens of appeals court nominees. Republicans also nixed the 60-vote filibuster for Supreme Court justices in 2017 in order to confirm Trump's first pick for the high court, Neil Gorsuch.
But Republicans have lashed out at the talk of expanding the Supreme Court, arguing that it's another sign of the Democratic Party's shift to the left ahead of the 2020 election.
In the lower chamber, Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said Tuesday that he would also introduce a constitutional amendment to maintain the current nine seats, though his proposal is unlikely to go anywhere in the Democratic-controlled House.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hasn't weighed in on the current Supreme Court fight, or the prospects that he would bring legislation on the issue up for a vote.
But GOP senators have been willing to use the chamber to try to drive a wedge between Democratic lawmakers and their progressive base ahead of 2020, with McConnell forcing a vote on the Green New Deal next week.
Rubio added in the Fox News op-ed that trying to expand the courts had become a "litmus test" for White House hopefuls and stemmed from an "ugly, winner-take-all rhetoric" among progressives.
"We are suffering a crisis of confidence and we cannot withstand further erosion of trust in one another and our institutions. The rhetoric used by some of my Democratic colleagues that suggests our institutions are increasingly unable to resolve modern society’s conflicts is dangerous," he added.
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 03/20/19 10:03 AM EDT
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
61 visitors
Unfortunately there is no number of Justices provided by the Constitution. Time for a Constitutional Amendment?
It may go nowhere, but let's make 'em vote!
A Constitutional Amendment would take a great deal of coordination in Congress...2/3rds must approve in both the House and the Senate. Then 38 of the 50 states must ratify the proposed amendment before it can become a part of the Constitution.
The house will want to pack the courts...the senate will not. The senate will want to limit the number of justices...the house will not.
The same goes for doing away with the Electoral College. While these wanna be presidential candidates let their ideas flow freely from their faces, they'd never be able to get 2/3rds in Congress...and the states that would be ignored if it means only the popular vote counts...well, they too would have a say.
History shows what can happen when some like to change the rules after the other side wins elections. We remember FDR trying to pack the Court. In those days people were far more rational. I give Rubio credit for bringing it to the public's attention.
The Constitution gives the authority to Congress, why would they take it away from themselves?
This is the problem i have with that. A Congress with this ability WILL work against a Presidents (of both sides) constitutional right to pick SC justices. Especially in heavily divided times like today. The Senate has "advise and consent" for those picks and that should be good enough.
That is 150 years of precedent, not to be brushed aside because one side loses the out of proportion influence it once had over the SCOTUS. Thanks for the history lesson, I believe I heard Tucker Carlson recite the same thing a few days ago.
Shameful that its necessary..
Lights! Roll cameras! GRANDSTAND!
Presidents cannot legislate. Presidents cannot change the Constitution.
Presidential candidates are raising issues that they can't do anything about under any circumstance. It's all a big show to get attention and further divide the country. And the unbiased media are spoon feeding stupidity to a stupid public.
Instead of focusing so much attention on things a President cannot do anything about, we need to be paying attention to what these candidates are promising to do within the authority of the President.
That is exactly what Rubio is doing. That's what the article was about, not Trump.
It's hard to imagine today's Congress generating the bipartisanship to pass a Constitutional amendment for anything.
Good point ... they have a hard enough time passing a budget or getting regular bills through. Continuing resolutions have become the norm.
The founders always wanted Congress responsive to their constituents. We have reached the point where the nation is so divided and politics have become so spiteful that representatives & Senators are reluctant to put their name on anything. Unfortunately, all the serious national issues have been taken on by the Court, which is not really their function.
Some history:
Then-Senator Joe Biden, 1983:
He was really ahead of his time!
Republicans: "Let's win the next election so we can pick some judges".
Democrats: "Let's change the rules so we can pick some judges".
Sure says it all right there. One party willing to win elections, one party willing to rewrite rules when things don't go their way.
Republicans: "Let's refuse to consider a valid Supreme Court nomination instead of doing our damn jobs. Party over country!"
Note that I don't agree with the Democrats' effort in this area, either.
I thought it was the Senate's job to advise and consent.
No consent, no pick.
But I do wish that they would have held a vote for or against.
I see no point in whining about it years later.
Do you see the guy in the picture in post 7? You can blame him for the idea of not considering a Judicial nominee in an election year.
They were exercising the 'Biden Rule' by refusing to hold a confirmation hearing or vote. That old adage - What goes around...comes around - came around.
I wouldn't support either party in an effort to pack the court...nor would I support term limits. The election partisan hype is bad enough without adding a determined time to replace a Justice.