Why do we need 9 Supreme Court Justices?

[Boats]

RE: http://mentalfloss.com/article/18976...reme-court-all

Topic: Why are there 9 Supreme Court Justices? (And why have a Supreme Court at all?)
7-2-2008

Here's some history - You will find this interesting - I did

With the Supreme Court ending its 2007-08 term last week, we thought now was a good time to answer some questions you probably weren't asking (but will nonetheless find interesting). The honorable David Holzel is presiding.

Why are there 9 Supremes?
There don't have to be—the Constitution doesn't specify—and there weren't always. The Federal Judiciary Act called for a chief justice and five associate justices. And the Court didn't settle into the current lineup of eight associates and a chief until the late 1860s.

A sixth associate was added in 1807, a seventh and eighth in 1837, and a ninth in 1863. Congress sought to restructure the Court during the contentious administration of Andrew Johnson, Abraham Lincoln's controversial successor. A law passed in 1866 called for a decrease in the number of associate justices from nine to six through the process of attrition. Seven associates still remained on the bench in 1869, when a law was passed to increase the number back to eight. By that time President Ulysses S. Grant had taken office.

That's how things stood until 1935, when a largely conservative Court unanimously overturned three of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal provisions. Roosevelt was reelected by a landslide the next year. So in 1937, he invested his political capital in making the court more liberal and, presumably, more enthusiastic about the New Deal.

Roosevelt proposed the "Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937"� -- known ever since as "the Court-packing scheme."� The Supreme Court would add one justice for every sitting justice over age 70. Roosevelt argued that the Court, with its six septuagenarians, wasn't up to the job. (In the current Court, six justices will be at least 70 by the end of 2008.)

The plan caused an uproar, even among Roosevelt's allies and, with the president refusing to give in, eventually died in Congress.

Is there a Jewish seat? An African-American seat?
The story goes that when Louis D. Brandeis sat on the Court, a fellow justice refused to sit in the same room with him. Brandeis was the Court's first Jewish justice, nominated by President Woodrow Wilson in 1916. From that time, until Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the bench in 1969, presidents always made sure there was at least one Jewish justice.

Similarly, after the retirement in 1991 of Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice, President George H.W. Bush nominated another African American to fill his seat—albeit the more conservative Clarence Thomas.

One reason President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Meiers was to have a woman succeed the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor, says Barbara A. Perry, professor of government at Sweet Briar College, in Virginia. Perry, author of A "Representative" Supreme Court? The Impact of Race, Religion, and Gender on Appointments, tells mental_floss that since the time of George Washington, presidents have sought "balancing representation"� in their nominations.

"It was geographical balance then,"� Perry says. "Later, religious seats developed."� And more recently, a seat for a woman and an African-American. To extend representation, "Bush really wanted to make Alberto Gonzales the first Hispanic justice."� (Gonzales resigned as attorney general over the firings of federal prosecutors.)

"But once a group enters the mainstream, presidents feel less compelled to reach out to them. The other way you know is if members of a group fill multiple seats."� In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated William Brennan, to ensure a Roman Catholic on the Court; today, of nine justices, seven are Catholics, including the chief justice. Another two are Jews.

Why is there a Supreme Court, anyway?
First, because the United States Constitution says so. Article III called for Congress to create a Supreme Court. But that doesn't entirely answer the question. The framers of the Constitution considered the lack of a high court as one of the chief weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, which the Constitution was intended to replace.

"All nations have found it necessary to establish one court paramount to the rest, possessing a general superintendence, and authorized to settle and declare in the last resort a uniform rule of civil justice,"� Alexander Hamilton argued in support of a court that would be a co-equal branch of government with Congress and the presidency.

Unlike the limited terms assigned to officers of the other branches of government, Article III says the members of the Supreme Court "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"�—essentially until they resign or die. It describes the Court's jurisdiction extending to "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."�

It took the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 to bring the Supreme Court and federal district courts into existence. The Court's first session opened on Feb. 2, 1790, but the justices heard no arguments during their first three sessions. The Court didn't issue its first major decision until 1793 when, in Chisholm v. Georgia, it ruled the state of Georgia was not immune to a lawsuit from a citizen of another state. That decision was overturned by the 11th Amendment, ratified in 1795.

During their long periods of down time, the early justices were occupied with riding the muddy roads of the country, settling cases as circuit judges. Sitting on a circuit court is still part of a justice's job description.

How does the Supreme Court enforce its decisions?
On its own, it can't. With no army to back it up and dour expressions not being enough to ensure compliance, the Court must rely on the executive branch for support.

This was a big selling point when the Constitution was being shopped around in 1787. The judiciary, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "has no influence over either the sword or the purse"¦. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment."� The Court, Hamilton said, would be "the least dangerous"� branch of government.

[Boats]

RE: http://lifehacker.com/why-is-the-emp...eal-1759198091

Topic: Why Is the Empty Supreme Court Seat Such a Big Deal? (see if this helps)
by: Eric Ravenscraft
Today 10:00am Filed to: POLITICS

Over the weekend, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away. Appointing a replacement would usually be boring. This time, it’s the last year of a Democratic President’s final term, during an election, and Republicans control the Senate. The Court is also perfectly split ideologically. This is a huge political battle. Here’s what it all means.

It’s The President’s Job to Nominate a New Supreme Court Justice

For those unfamiliar with basic civics, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, staffed by nine judges, called Justices. They make decisions on cases that the lower courts can’t settle, and they have the final say in whether a law is consistent with the Constitution. The nine justices serve lifetime appointments, meaning they stay on the Supreme Court until they retire or they die.

According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, it’s the President’s job to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice when one of the nine seats is vacant. The Senate must then vote to approve or reject that nominee by a simple majority, meaning at least 51 out of the 100 senators must approve to confirm the nomination.

As the New York Times points out, this process typically takes only a few months. In the entire history of the United States, the Senate has never taken more than 125 days to confirm or reject a nominee. However, if a nominee is rejected, the process can take a lot longer. While prolonged vacancies are rare, it has happened a few times. Most notably, there was a 391 day long vacancy on the Supreme Court during President Nixon’s term, after two of his nominations were rejected in a row. This was the longest time a Supreme Court seat was vacant since the nine-seat system was instituted in 1869, shortly after the Civil War.

This Particular Vacancy Is a Perfect Political Storm

While most appointments are relatively boring, a lot of factors line up to make this one a huge deal. To begin with, President Obama is in his last year in office, and the election for our next president is ramping up quickly. Republicans also hold 54 of the seats in the Senate, which means they’re able to block the current President’s nominations if they choose to. For the Republican party, the hope is that by 2017, there will be a Republican President that will make a more conservative nomination.

That distinction is particularly important now, as Scalia was one of the Supreme Court’s most conservative judges. More importantly, with the inclusion of Scalia, the Supreme Court generally leaned conservative. Four justices—Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan—tend to have a liberal-leaning slant, though Breyer is sometimes considered more of a moderate. Meanwhile four justices—Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and formerly Scalia—leaned heavily conservative. Justice Kennedy is usually a conservative that occasionally voted with liberals and is frequently seen as a swing vote. While this is all very difficult to quantify, the result is that the Supreme Court generally leaned conservative. In fact, the Supreme Court has leaned conservative since the mid-60s. With Scalia’s seat empty, the Court is almost perfectly divided ideologically. If the President can appoint a liberal judge, it will be the first liberal Court in nearly 50 years.

Some high profile Senate Republicans—including Majority leader Mitch McConnell—have said they won’t vote to confirm any new appointment until we have a new President. Many senators refer to the informal “Thurmond Rule” that suggests no new judges should be appointed during the final days of a president’s last term. However, this “rule” is applied with wild inconsistency.

As Politifact points out, since 1900 there have only been six cases where a Supreme Court seat was vacant during the last year of a president’s term at all. Only one of those six cases was during the final year of a president that was not seeking re-election, which means this situation is rare enough to begin with. In that instance, the nomination failed. However that vacancy was due to a justice retiring, not the death of a justice. Failing to nominate a replacement wasn’t as critical since there were still nine justices on the Supreme Court the entire time. That distinction could have a significant impact on how this process plays out.


How to Get Out of an Unwanted Political Conversation

With the election taking place last night, everyone wants to talk about it. That's great, and… - An Empty Seat Doesn’t Mean the Court Stops Ruling

Why Is the Empty Supreme Court Seat Such a Big Deal?

The Supreme Court has nine justices for a reason. With an odd number of justices, it’s impossible to have a tie (except in the case of a recusal.) However, when there are only eight justices, the court doesn’t just stop hearing cases. If a Supreme Court decision results in a 4-4 split while they await a new nomination, the court then simply upholds whatever the lower court’s decision was. However, no precedent is set, meaning that no future cases can point that decision as proof of the Supreme Court’s final decision on the matter.

This has a wide variety of political and social consequences. It would be hard to quantify all of them, but over the short term, it could have significant impacts on some very high profile cases.

Here are a few:

Whole Women’s Health v. Cole: This is the first case on the subject of abortion that the Supreme Court has heard since 1992. This case challenges a Texas law that shut down half of the state’s abortion clinics.

Evenwel v. Abbott: This case would determine whether all residents of a district should be counted when drawing legislative districts, or just eligible voters. The difference between these two interpretations can have a significant impact on elections for state congresses.
US v. Texas: This case challenges the President’s 2014 executive order that attempted to grant deferred action to persons living in the United States illegally, but who are the child of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

You can read more cases that are of immediate concern over at Vox. While not all of these cases are guaranteed to be split votes among the remaining eight justices, at least a few of them probably will be.

As The Washington Post points out, while the Supreme Court is relatively evenly split, the thirteen U.S. Courts of Appeals (just below the Supreme Court) are not so balanced. Nine of the thirteen courts are made up primarily of Democratic nominees. This doesn’t necessarily mean judges will always make liberal rulings, but the power balance at the lower courts is worth considering. If the Supreme Court seat is left vacant for an entire year (or more), it’s likely that more of the split decisions would fall back on the judgments of liberal-leaning appeals courts, instead of being overruled by the previously conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

There’s also the indirect consequence of leaving the seat vacant to consider. If the Senate refuses to confirm an otherwise popular or acceptable nominee, it may negatively affect the 2016 election. Not only are we electing a new President, but 34 Senate seats are up for re-election. Of those, nine are close enough races that they may switch sides in the election. Six of those seats belong to Republicans. Notably, the President only needs five Republicans to vote to confirm a nominee to secure the Supreme Court seat. This type of razor’s edge divide could lead to the President nominating a more moderate or universally palatable candidate in order to pressure the Senate to confirm the nominee. Otherwise, the Republicans in the Senate could risk blocking the nomination for partisan reasons, and potentially lose seats in the election.

How to Make Your Voice Heard This Year

You’re probably going to hear a lot about the potential new Supreme Court justice for the next few months. The power struggle between both political parties has high enough stakes that the debate is likely to get heated. If this were a sport, it would be a tie game during the Super Bowl with ten minutes left on the clock.

However, there’s also enough time between now and when President Obama leaves office that most interested parties are going to do a lot of posturing. Most Supreme Court nominees are made in much less time than the current president has left, but a few very rare circumstances have made the process considerably longer. What happens now depends a lot on how stubborn both parties get, and how much the President and the Senate can work together.

Fortunately, this is a situation where you get to have a lot of indirect (and a little direct!) influence. In the short term, you can write to your Senators to let them know how you feel about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. If there’s been no appointment by the end of summer or so, you can find out if either of your state’s senators are one of the 34 up for re-election. Check out this handy tool to get information on your senators.