General Discussion

Shrek

(3,986 posts)

6. For that you need two-thirds of each house plus 38 state legislatures n/t

Reply to multigraincracker (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 09:03 AM

Apr 27

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It takes 60 Senate votes to enlarge the Supreme Court. [View all] Cyrano Apr 27 OP

GQPs will not go for it until ................................. Lovie777 Apr 27 #1

Not if you eliminate the filibuster. gab13by13 Apr 27 #2

The filibuster is not in the constitution LetMyPeopleVote Apr 27 #24

I'm just waiting to see which Democrat will be FoxNewsSucks Apr 27 #26

There is always that. Voltaire2 Apr 28 #37

How many votes to put an age multigraincracker Apr 27 #3

Don't know. But it likely won't affect sitting justices who Cyrano Apr 27 #5

For that you need two-thirds of each house plus 38 state legislatures n/t Shrek Apr 27 #6

The Constitution has been interpreted as an appointment for life. Lonestarblue Apr 27 #15

That would require a constitutional amendment. LiberalFighter Apr 29 #59

Nope, just 50+ VP Fiendish Thingy Apr 27 #4

I got my info from google. Do you have a link to 50+VP Cyrano Apr 27 #7

Google "nuclear option" and "senate" Fiendish Thingy Apr 27 #10

Got it. Thanks. Cyrano Apr 27 #11

At best, we'll have 51 seats next year Polybius Apr 27 #30

Disagree, the right 51 Dems could kill the McConnell version of filibuster JT45242 Apr 27 #8

Okay, I didn't know that. Which seems to indicate we could change Cyrano Apr 27 #9

No the house would have to pass the bill first then send it to the senate Fiendish Thingy Apr 27 #12

True but if we get the right 51 in the senate, likely we hold the house JT45242 Apr 27 #14

Yes, but the house still has to pass it. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 27 #18

It's not necessary for a bill to start in the house NanaCat Apr 27 #20

Only for taxes. Voltaire2 Apr 28 #38

The right Democrats... JT45242 Apr 27 #13

Neither will be in the Senate next year. LiberalFighter Apr 27 #34

It takes far more than 60. former9thward Apr 27 #16

True for now. BUT bluestarone Apr 27 #19

There was a time from the 60's to the 90's when it seemed nearly every Supreme Court decision went our way Polybius Apr 27 #31

So what are we supposed to do? ecstatic Apr 27 #33

There are 13 US appellate courts, there should be 13 SCOTUS justices to match that number. Will it happen? Doubtful. Celerity Apr 28 #40

Thanks for posting ecstatic Apr 28 #46

Nothing Polybius Apr 29 #54

Having cognizance of the ability to pass something NanaCat Apr 27 #21

Where 50 is greater than 60, that is true. Voltaire2 Apr 28 #39

They changed that to a simple majority. Emile Apr 27 #17

Who did? Polybius Apr 27 #32

Incorrect. Celerity Apr 28 #41

Technically, I wasn't incorrect Polybius Apr 28 #47

you were incorrect Celerity Apr 28 #48

I meant things, not people Polybius Apr 28 #49

I did not misunderstand anything, please do not condescend to me. I went 100 per cent off what you typed. Celerity Apr 28 #50

It was clearly worded wrong Polybius Apr 29 #53

No. It just takes 51 if they are voting to end the fillibuster ColinC Apr 27 #22

Anyone going to point out that even the largest "tsunami" can't possibly get us to 60? FBaggins Apr 27 #23

it's worth impeaching him in the house, even if mopinko Apr 27 #25

Lets really focus on getting out the vote in November.. FarPoint Apr 27 #27

Biden opposes expanding the court so getting it past the senate doesn't matter if he won't sign it Takket Apr 27 #28

You also need the political will & I don't think our side has that. CrispyQ Apr 27 #29

It also takes 50 Senators (plus a VP) who actually want to change the Court brooklynite Apr 27 #35

Bottom line is you need two-thirds of the Senate and House to change the Constitutional requirements for SC Justices pecosbob Apr 27 #36

Thomas will most likely resign Tickle Apr 28 #42

I think he wants to break the record for longest serving Justice ever Polybius Apr 29 #55

I didn't know that was a thing Tickle Apr 29 #57

you mean it's not as easy as screeching to the President online "expand the courts" MistakenLamb Apr 28 #43

Expanding a conservative Supreme Court is a Democratic wet dream until they are enlightened how things really work. elocs Apr 28 #44

Why not create more states? anamnua Apr 28 #45

Requires approval of the legislature of the state involved and Congress DetroitLegalBeagle Apr 28 #52

Plus... Mike Nelson Apr 28 #51

Impeachment probably should be difficult Model35mech Apr 29 #56

They can change that if we take Senate...I think the filibuster needs to go personally. Demsrule86 Apr 29 #58