General Discussion

sl8

(17,143 posts)

43. What do you mean by "originally only had 1"?

Reply to standingtall (Reply #35)

Fri May 1, 2026, 08:32 AM

May 1

The 1789 Judiciary Act set the number of SCOTUS justices at 6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

SocialDemocrat61

99 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should the Dems expand the SCOTUS to 13 justices [View all] BigmanPigman Apr 30 OP

They need the President. mr715 Apr 30 #1

Damn it! BigmanPigman Apr 30 #4

2029. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #15

Huh if we are ever going to add Justices to the Court standingtall May 1 #29

Besides which we need a Democratic president to make decent SC nominations--- Jack Valentino May 1 #90

Yes MustLoveBeagles Apr 30 #2

The whole idea of American government was divided power bucolic_frolic Apr 30 #3

That's a thoughtful reply and I agree. BigmanPigman Apr 30 #7

We'll need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster Buckeyeblue Apr 30 #5

Nope Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #14

THIS is a must do, if we get in there. bluestarone May 1 #51

Yes,... dump the filibuster magicarpet May 1 #59

Indeed Fiendish Thingy May 1 #62

Yup,.. Fully agree. magicarpet May 1 #65

I'm pretty sure the assumption is Democrats would get rid of the filibuster in order to pass this. Wiz Imp May 1 #55

Damned right they should. hlthe2b Apr 30 #6

I listened to a liberal podcast and that made remember this issue... BigmanPigman Apr 30 #8

Yeah.. It is an uphill battle, though the SCOTUS review that included Lawrence Tribe, did recommend hlthe2b Apr 30 #10

Hear, hear!!!!! BigmanPigman Apr 30 #11

Biden's SCOTUS review did NOT recommend expansion Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #17

OFFICIALLY NO. Did you read Tribe's discussions? Apparently not. hlthe2b May 1 #21

Well, of course, there were people screaming for court expansion long before the commission was formed Fiendish Thingy May 1 #53

Lawrence Tribe was ON the committee!!! hlthe2b May 1 #63

He was but one voice on the bipartisan committee Fiendish Thingy May 1 #64

Yes. There should be 13 Justices to coincide with the 13 Circuits. yellow dahlia Apr 30 #9

That makes sense. Emile May 1 #91

What if the Republicans agreed with that logic and increased it to 13 themselves? MichMan Sunday #92

Actually, the process is more complicated than a magic wand. yellow dahlia Sunday #94

Should they? Probably. Will they? No. BlueTsunami2018 Apr 30 #12

Dems must not govern from fear of what republicans might do once back in power Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #18

I don't think they govern out of fear of Republicans. BlueTsunami2018 May 1 #66

Priority #1 in 2029. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #13

Oh hell yes!!! oasis Apr 30 #16

Make it at least 15. dalton99a Apr 30 #19

No Renew Deal Apr 30 #20

That hasn't been working out for the last 30 years... and we've been winning elections. In It to Win It May 1 #74

Unfortunately not at the right time Renew Deal May 1 #75

Yes, exactly... and you know they plan to retire when Republicans win. In It to Win It May 1 #77

Graham Platner says yes. Emile May 1 #22

Yes I was just thinking that. magicarpet May 1 #67

We so need young blood in both houses of congress with fresh new provocative and magicarpet May 1 #70

No. It's The Kind Of Thing Republicans Would Do. ColoringFool May 1 #23

No it should be expanded to 15 at minimum probably more standingtall May 1 #24

It's 13 because SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #26

So we don't need to limit it to 13 because there are 13 federal districts standingtall May 1 #30

So the next democratic president can add 10 SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #33

The Supreme Court was designed to always be expanded standingtall May 1 #35

Yes it was SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #40

They have weaponized the Supreme Court to take people rights away standingtall May 1 #42

What is least controversial SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #44

If you have the power to add Justices then you don't need to defend it standingtall May 1 #45

In a democracy it should be defended and based on a principle SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #48

That's sounds like fighting to uphold red tape not principles standingtall May 1 #49

That's the argument of those who just want to win at all costs. SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #50

Would it have the same level of support if Republicans did it now? MichMan Sunday #93

Are they doing it now? SocialDemocrat61 Sunday #95

What do you mean by "originally only had 1"? sl8 May 1 #43

Yes SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #25

Yes Jilly_in_VA May 1 #37

Yes RandySF May 1 #27

After the extreme partisanship from the McConnell era, hell yes! Emile May 1 #28

Yes. OLDMDDEM May 1 #31

I want 50. One for each state. yourout May 1 #32

I want 6 new States too standingtall May 1 #34

The vibe I hear in the VI Jilly_in_VA May 1 #36

Not a secure Democratic enclave there are a territory standingtall May 1 #38

Making all US territories states would significantly exacerbate an already horrible imbalance of representation Wiz Imp May 1 #58

Well there is also a Demographic imbalance of representaation already too standingtall May 1 #72

Huh? Adding states with population under 50,000 gives California more power? Seriously? Wiz Imp May 1 #78

Yes I do standingtall May 1 #79

My search showed the representative of Puerto Rico was Jenniffer Gonzalez Colon who became Governor of Puerto Rico last Wiz Imp May 1 #81

How are laws passed? standingtall May 1 #83

So your solution to California being drowned out by smaller , less diverse states Wiz Imp May 1 #84

Still it would make America more diverse nationally as a whole standingtall May 1 #85

And you are perfectly fine with voters in American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands having 800 times the voting power Wiz Imp May 1 #86

Absolutely! -misanthroptimist May 1 #39

2021 Final Report from the Presidential Commission on SCOTUS: sl8 May 1 #41

Instantly. Or sooner. CanonRay May 1 #46

It depends on the political landscape in 28. everyonematters May 1 #47

With a DEM POTUS - YES. Do they have the cajones to do it? CousinIT May 1 #52

Term limits would be easier to get through legislation? FloridaBlues May 1 #54

Term limits is the better idea IMO. expansion becomes a runaway game where the Pubs just add more later Amishman May 1 #56

Below, you explain why that can't really happen just now. MineralMan May 1 #57

Absolfunkinlutely randr May 1 #60

It's a non-negotiable the_liberal_grandpa May 1 #61

Nothing happens until AIPAC's influence within the Democratic Party is reduced and minimized Ponietz May 1 #68

13 circuits - 13 Justices. haele May 1 #69

Better to focus on term limits pinkstarburst May 1 #71

There is no chance in hell we are getting term limits on Supreme Court Justices in a standingtall May 1 #87

Yes and add more lower court judges too. In It to Win It May 1 #73

Definitely! creeksneakers2 May 1 #76

After we win the White House, we need to do this LetMyPeopleVote May 1 #80

Yes D_Master81 May 1 #82

And term limits. orangecrush May 1 #88

Mitch McConnell says no. Emile May 1 #89

FDR recognized the need to pack the court, so should we NNguyenMD Sunday #96

MaddowBlog-Why John Roberts' defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive LetMyPeopleVote Thursday #97

I want to puke 24/7 BigmanPigman Thursday #99

Needs to be in the Platform, along with DC and PR statehood JCMach1 Thursday #98