There's Nothing Sacred About the Number 'Nine'

Brett Kavanaugh may be confirmed this week and by Monday sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

If that happens and when the next Congress takes office in January, there will be an immediate investigation by the U.S. House into the FBI's so-called investigation this week into Kavanaugh as Democrats will re-capture the gavel and chair all the House committees and therefore have subpoena power.

It's clear the White House limited the scope of the investigation and while the FBI interview notes may be confidential, any directives the FBI was given by the White House are not.

Democrats might not be able to work up to 67 votes in the Senate for impeachment in the next 6 years.

And if not, President Joe Biden should pack the court. Only 50%+1 in each chamber of Congress would be needed to pass legislation expanding the Supreme Court to 11.

There's nothing sacred about the number "nine."

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M

I find it interesting that you can be so cavalier about anarchy

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@HoraceGreenley

Using the rule of law. Not cavalier about anything. If anyone is cavalier about the consequences of political statements, you ought to look to the person behind the Resolute desk.

HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M

@beckyromero By statute their are 9 supreme court justices.

Who is President Biden?

HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M

@beckyromero In your mind, the ends justify the means. You want power and will do anything to get it.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@HoraceGreenley [quote]By statute[/quote]

Yes, by "by statute." Not by the Constitution. Congress can change a statute (i.e. a law) a by 50%+1 vote in each chamber.

[quote]Who is President Biden?[/quote]

#46. (Unless Pence serves a year or so in between Trump's resignation and Biden's election)

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@HoraceGreenley [quote]You want power and will do anything to get it.
[/quote]

I'll settle for World Empress. Believe me. We'd be one happy planet.

As for the presidency, we have elections. As for the expanding the Court, it can be done legally and Constitutionally. The Congress can do it. There's nothing sacred about "nine." Just as there was nothing sacred about "13."

HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M

@beckyromero I know what, by statute means. You want a Democrat President and Congress to increase the number of justices so you can pack the court with liberals.

Good Luck with that strategy.

You should be mad at Obama for not getting the older liberal justices to retire so he could replace them. That's the real mistake.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@HoraceGreenley [quote]You want a Democrat President and Congress to increase the number of justices so you can pack the court with liberals... You should be mad at Obama...[/quote]

I voted [b]against[/b] Obama [b]five times[/b] in my lifetime.

If I only wanted a Democrat president, I wouldn't have voted for both John McCain and Mitt Romney.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Your voted for Romney? Eeewwwwww. It sickens me that Rome y will be sitting in Orrin Hatch’s seat. I have to say that Lindsay Graham has really stepped up to the plate. He may end up being remembered by history as a statesman. @beckyromero

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@jackjjackson [quote]Your voted for Romney? Eeewwwwww. [/quote]

Yes. And I actually think Romney would have made a good president, too. I still do. He just wasn't a great debater, doesn't think quickly enough or was too worried about sticking to re-hearsed answered as many politicians do, or he would have won the election.

Hated it meant voting for Ryan for veep. Would have liked to split that ticket.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

I wonder why President’s and Veeps can’t be separately voted on. Many states have governors and lieutenant governors voted on separately. @beckyromero

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@jackjjackson [quote]I wonder why President’s and Veeps can’t be separely voted on[/quote]

Trump and Hillary? They'd constantly be looking behind their backs.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

It would have been Mrs Clinton’s running mate who we have already forgotten about lol. @beckyromero

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@jackjjackson

Under the Constitution initially, the president and vice president were chosen by who got the most and second most electoral votes. Hence why Thomas Jefferson was John Adams' vice president.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Guess that worked then. @beckyromero

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@jackjjackson

Remember, they were running [i]against[/i] each other. Twice.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Got it. I d t think that system works today. @beckyromero