If things aren’t bad enough, here’s a recommended solution to the partisan gridlock which I cannot see result in anything other than making matters worse. Stan Isaacs writes:
This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court.
The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. It shrank to five in 1801. It expanded to seven in 1807. It grew to nine in 1837 and 10 in 1863. It fell back to seven in 1866. It returned to nine in 1869 and has remained at that number since.
Political issues accounted for the changes. The Federalists reduced the number to five, hoping to deprive Thomas Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democrats repealed that measure, raising the number to seven. It went to nine in 1837 to give Andrew Jackson two more seats. Civil War issues led to more fluctuations before the court settled at nine under President Ulysses Grant.
So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.
Anyone really think that this has a shot of getting past a filibuster? It is doubtful that the Democrats could get all fifty-nine members who caucus with them to go along with such appointments. They would never get a 60th vote, and in the meantime Republicans would increase their support with justifiable cries of packing the court.
RT @ronchusid: How To Really Escalate Partisan Fighting–an op-ed advising #Obama to try to increase number of Supremes. http://bit.ly/dpw4pc #p2
ยป How To Really Escalate Partisan Fighting Liberal Values http://bit.ly/aN6nCF