Justice Barrett’s SCOTUS Cases

| October 27, 2020

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett is sworn in by Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas during a ceremonial swearing-in event on the South Lawn of the White House October 26, 2020 in Washington, DC.(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Justice Barrett (love the sound of that) will hit the deck running when she joins SCOTUS this week. Forbes provides a list of impending cases.

Here Are The Biggest Cases Amy Coney Barrett Will Help Decide On The Supreme Court This Term

Alison Durkee

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is expected to be confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice Monday—and once she joins the court, she’ll provide a crucial vote in a Supreme Court term that will cover everything from voting rights and healthcare to immigration and LGBTQ discrimination. Here are the biggest cases coming up after Barrett’s likely confirmation:

2020 Election: The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on mail-in voting deadlines in Pennsylvania and North Carolina—and more cases could follow, as dozens of voting rights lawsuits are still playing out in lower courts—and Barrett could weigh in on any post-election disputes that arise as ballots are being counted.

Voting Rights: After the election—the hearing date is not yet set—the court will hear a major voting rights case from Arizona, which will determine whether to permit voting practices that specifically enfranchise voters of color and whether to allow ballots to be collected by third parties, which Republicans oppose as “ballot harvesting.”

LGBTQ/Religious Discrimination: On Nov. 4, the court will hear arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a religious liberty case that was brought over whether a Catholic social services agency that receives taxpayer funding can legally discriminate against same-sex couples to be foster parents.

Health Care: On Nov. 10, the court will hear Texas v. California, which will determine whether the Affordable Care Act should be struck down or upheld in light of the law’s individual mandate being invalidated.

U.S. Census: On Nov. 30, the court will hear Trump v. New York, regarding whether the Trrump administration can legally exclude undocumented immigrants from U.S. Census tallies used to apportion seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mueller Report Materials: On Dec. 2, the court will hear Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary, which concerns whether House lawmakers can see redacted materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign, and whether impeachment counts as a “judicial proceeding” that grants lawmakers access to grand jury materials.

Fourth Amendment: The court will hear a case this term on whether police can enter a suspect’s home without a warrant in response to a suspect allegedly committing a misdemeanor, as well as Brownback v. King, which was brought by a man who was beat by undercover FBI agents and sent to jail after being mistaken for a criminal suspect.

Asylum Seekers: The court announced last week it will hear a case determining the legality of the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico until their case is heard in court.

Border Wall Funding: The court will also hear a case regarding whether the Trump administration can legally divert Department of Defense funds to the president’s border wall without authorization from Congress.

The asylum and border wall cases are unlikely to be heard until after Inauguration Day, and will likely be dismissed should Joe Biden be elected president.

Another reason, as if one was needed, to get out and pull the handle for Trump. Read the rest of the article here: Forbes

Category: 2020 Election, Donald Trump, SCOTUS

Comments (89)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Graybeard says:

    Now we get to unwrap the present that is ACB and see what we really received.

    • Commissar says:

      Someone who will vote on the side of power more than 90% of the time.

      Choose government over the people.
      Choose big corporations over small corporations.
      Choose corporations over small businesses.
      Choose corporations over consumers.
      Choose corporations over workers.
      Choose police over citizens.
      Choose power over everything else.

      We know this because that has been her record already.

      She is a classical conservative.

      The very same ideology we fought a revolution to overthrow,

      • SFC D says:

        Someone who will vote on the side of the constitution 100% of the time.

        Choose constitutionality over feelings.
        Choose what is allowed under the constitution vice what the loudest screeching desires.
        Choose to leave lawmaking in the hands of the legislature.

      • Berliner says:

        Thanks to the recovered laptop and a previous speech by $leepy Joe we know where his bread is buttered. As both he and his handlers say “这是人的本性”(It’s human nature).

      • Graybeard says:

        Lars – go take your drug-addled dreams somewhere else.

        • Nucsnipe says:

          You beat me to it. I was gonna say Lars has been in the psychedelic shrooms again

          • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

            And dreaming about going BALLS DEEP for Bernie…

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              Speakin’ of the devil, I remember watching Bernie-heads PROMISE that they were going to burn Milwaukee to the ground if their guy didn’t get the nomination, but instead they’re burning everywhere else they can down while being Soros’s useful idiots!

      • Gwdusn says:

        Gee, and all this time I thought the “War for Independence “ was because of taxation without representation. I was not aware that the cause of the war was over conservative values.

    • Slow Joe says:

      Greetestest song evah.

      Jimmy Hendrix. Along the washtowel

      https://youtu.be/TLV4_xaYynY

  2. rgr1480 says:

    I have already “pulled the handle.” Have been voting by mail for years now, here in Commiefornicate. This year they added tracking and I was informed by email twice that (1) my vote had passed through the USPS, and (2) my vote had arrived at the county elections office.

    I can even log on and double-check:
    https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status/wheres-my-ballot

    Ballot Printed
    10/04/2020
    Your ballot has been printed! Your county elections office has printed your ballot and is preparing to send it to you.

    Ballot Outbound
    10/05/2020
    Your ballot has been mailed! Your ballot is at the Post Office and is making its way to you. Look for your ballot in your mailbox soon!

    Ballot Inbound
    10/17/2020
    Your ballot is on the way to your county elections office! The Postal Service has indicated to us that they have your ballot, and it is being returned to your county elections office.

    Ballot Accepted
    10/19/2020
    Your ballot has been accepted! Your ballot was received by your county elections office and will be counted.

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020

  3. 5th/77th FA says:

    I’ll be dragging my happy dirt digging doggie faced pony soldier self down to vote in person on Tuesday next. It’s a tradition and my local poll workers seem to enjoy seeing the Gun Bunny show up. Not sure if they are glad to see me come or just glad to see me go and they survived another visit from him. A Lady Friend says I seem to have that effect, no matter where I am. She never said exactly which effect she was talking about.

    I feel a little bit more comfortable with the caretaking of our Constitution now that Justice Barrett has been duly sworn in.

    GO AMY…GO AMY…GO AMY… I bet she cooks, too!

    • Fyrfighter says:

      Sounds good KoB! I’ll be voting in person as well, though a few days early ( election day is the second day of our shift, and I’m over thirty miles from my polling place… Don’t wanna hit the department for 3 hours off to go vote)

  4. 26Limabeans says:

    “Mueller Report Materials: On Dec. 2”

    Nice. Doesn’t mean we get to see them but the more eyes the better.

  5. LC says:

    Another reason, as if one was needed, to get out and pull the handle for Trump.

    Or, you know, to pull it for Biden/Harris. For the same reasons.

    • AW1Ed says:

      Sure LC. Let all the illegals currently held in Mexico in to melt away into our cities never to face a judge, and walls work, so tear it down to further open the floodgates.
      Brilliant.

      • Fyrfighter says:

        And to vote democrat, don’t forget that part…

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          Actually, they want them to count for apportioning representatives, but not actually cast ballots. That is why they made no effort to legalize them when they had slam-dunk majorities in house and Senate, plus the white house, and a reasonably friendly Supreme Court.

          That is a “tell”.

          You know, like they did to blacks for so long.

          • Fyrfighter says:

            I didn’t mean to suggest that they wanted to legalize them, as that would take away the ability to use them as pawns to beat conservatives over the head with. But that doesn’t mean they don’t want them to vote (see California). And with stolen SSN’s, you can bet that they are being encouraged to register and vote as if they were citizens…
            As to using them for apportioning representatives, you’re spot on in this case!

      • LC says:

        Well, you got me. I and several others(*) all cackle gleefully at the notion of letting illegal immigrants run rampant throughout the country. There’s no conceivable reason to vote for Biden/Harris other than that, naturally!

        (*) Note: Those others include die-hard fans of illegal immigrants like Colin Powell (R), Tom Ridge (R), Bill McRaven (R), Miles Taylor (R), Elizabeth Neumann (R), John Negroponte (R), Richard Armitage (R), Olivia Troye (R), and Bill Kristol (R), just to name a few. I’m betting all those Republican stalwarts and national security experts are just itching to open the border to illegal immigrants.

        At some level you know Democrats aren’t really for unrestrained illegal immigration any more than Obama was for taking all your guns back in 2008, despite that being a Republican rallying cry back then. You also know there’s more than one issue to vote for or against a candidate on.

        Good luck on Tuesday. We’re both voting for who we think provides for a more prosperous, secure and free country.

        • Poetrooper says:

          “(*) Note: Those others include die-hard fans of illegal immigrants like Colin Powell (R), Tom Ridge (R), Bill McRaven (R), Miles Taylor (R), Elizabeth Neumann (R), John Negroponte (R), Richard Armitage (R), Olivia Troye (R), and Bill Kristol (R), just to name a few.”

          Looks like you Googled “List of prominent Trump Derangement Syndrome victims…”

          • LC says:

            You do realize that a few of them worked for some years in the Trump administration?

            People who signed on to work for this POTUS in good faith, then learned the emperor has no clothes, aren’t suffering from a made-up disorder you use to dismiss valid complaints. They’re patriots, and in this case, Republicans, who have seen the damage and foolishness first-hand. And want better for the country.

            • Poetrooper says:

              Naw, LC, I’m just so back-country unaware that I didn’t have a single clue who those people are.

              Talk about unaware–you don’t realize when you’re being made fun of?

              • LC says:

                Made fun of? Oh, the horror. I’m being mocked on the internet. What ever will I do to recover from such a terrible fate.

                • Poetrooper says:

                  Once again, with all your liberal smugness, you missed the point. it’s not the fact that you were being made fun of–it’s that you, another one of those smartest-guy-on-the thread types–didn’t get it.

                  What ever WILL you do?

        • AW1Ed says:

          Blue Dog, Reagan, Rust Belt Democrats, sure LC. Unfortunately the far left moon bats of the Dem party are at the helm, and are all about no fossil fuels, open borders, taxes and regulations that will crush the economy, more Covid shutdowns that will do the same, First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Twenty Fifth Amendments in danger, packing SCOTUS with activist judges, statehood for PR and DC (clearly unconstitutional on DC’s part), kill the filibuster all with the intent of one-party rule, shall I go on? Oh, the 800 pound gorilla, late term, partial birth abortions for all.
          So yeah. Good luck on Tuesday. If Trump wins there will be more riots in the streets of Dem cities. Funny thing, same if Biden gets the nod. Question is, who is going to put a stop to it?

          • LC says:

            See, I have friends who describe the Republicans in the most extreme terms too – all about poisoning our kids (fossil fuels), racism (no immigration), endless deficit spending (wasn’t Trump supposed to bring this down?), zero regulations for industry so they can do whatever the hell they want, court packing (already happened!), etc.

            The simple fact is, these extreme views don’t represent the parties. No, Democrats are not for ‘open borders’ in any large number, no matter what mental gymnastics you do to transform ‘immigration reform’ into ‘open borders’. And this applies to nearly all your other views of the Democrats as well.

            If you’re ever in Colorado, let me know – I’d happily share a beer with you and Fyrfighter, giving you the two-on-one advantage you deplorables need, to discuss this stuff with you. I have no great love for the Democrats, but they also aren’t this horrible, ‘kill-America’ party you seem to make them out to be. I won’t convince you of that online, obviously, but I do think even you could maybe see another perspective with a bit of a back and forth conversation. 😉

            I do agree there’ll be riots no matter what. As for who to stop that, the answer is pretty simple – people like you and me. Having an understanding that you can disagree with the other party, on principles, without demonizing them and thinking they’re trying to destroy your way of life does a lot to stake out common ground far from the extremes that represent the worst of us.

            • AW1Ed says:

              If I’m in Colorado the first round is on me, LC. I think you know this deplorable well enough that the conversation will be cordial. Fyr is more than welcome but not needed to make a point.

              That being the right wing nuts are not driving the Conservative bus, while the far left loons are plainly in charge of theirs.

              • Poetrooper says:

                You’re a better man than I am, Ed. The man just said you and Fyrfighter are only half as smart as he is.

                As I just mentioned in another response to LC, it’s that snide sense of intellectual superiority they can’t help but display, even when extending an invitation, that I find so irritating.

                I think they’d have an easier time selling some of their views if they just weren’t so damned all-knowing smug about it. So-called mainstream journalists are a prime example. And to this old infantry NCO, college-boy draftees were another.

                That’s why so much of America doesn’t more readily buy into their programs, some of which aren’t entirely wrongheaded. Americans simply can’t stomach the smug assholes pushing them–look at those red-blue election maps.

                Humility isn’t found in the liberal lexicon…

                • LC says:

                  Talk about unaware – you didn’t realize the ‘two-on-one’ advantage thing was a joke?

                  I get along just fine with both Ed and Fyr. I’d have thought that explicitly calling them ‘deplorables’ while offering to grab a beer with them would’ve made that pretty clear.

                  If you’re passing through Colorado, you’re invited too, but let me get a few beers in before you arrive, Poe. I think I’ll need it.

                  • Poetrooper says:

                    Sorry, my bad–I’m unused to liberals having a sense of humor–especially a droll sense of humor.

                    Smug and droll are frequently difficult to differentiate–especially when dealing with liberals–where smug flourishes in such great abundance while humor fails to thrive.

                    Fyr, Ed, get a taster for your beers–I still think it’s a trick…

                    • Fyrfighter says:

                      Lol, just got back from another deployment last night. Think I’ve earned a few beers one way or the other. But it is good to be back with all you deplorables! (at least for a few days.. hehe)

          • Only Army Mom says:

            AW1Ed – sorry to disagree but I am not even a little bit worried Republicans will take to the streets and burn down the cities if Harris/Biden wins. I am truly worried what the Dems will do if Trump wins. What I’m hearing, the contingency plans that are being put in place 50-100 miles outside one of those cities as well as in one of those cities tells me lots of people are truly worried, too. Even the law & order people don’t believe the Republicans will be the problem, but they do believe the Bernie Bros, SoyBoys, Beta-tifia and proggie loons will riot no matter who wins…and try to get Republicans blamed. And that’ll probably work, with the willing assistance of the media.

            To your question of who will stop it? If Trump wins, Trump will stop it and enforce the laws Dem gubners and may-herz won’t…just like was done to enforce Civil Rights.

            If Biden wins? No one will stop it. But, yeah, cities will burn first. As much as it saddens me to say as a born and bred former resident of one of those cities whose family and friends are still there, they deserve it for continuing to elect those Dem gubners and may-herz.

            • AW1Ed says:

              Apologize for my lack of clarity, OAM. My point is Antifa and the Marxist BLM will riot regardless who wins the election, and Trump will enforce the rule of law.

            • Poetrooper says:

              OAM, let’s hope it doesn’t get to the point of armed confrontation.

              But if it does, it’s far more likely that conservative forces will simply surround the worst of the urban liberal strongholds and choke off all non-essential supplies and services (basic food stocks, residential water and power only–no alcohol, no Internet and no phone service) until the people within come to their senses and realize how essential those provincial deplorables surrounding them are to urbanites’ everyday wellbeing.

              Maybe then they will awaken to how badly they have been misled by their delusional leftist Democrat leadership.

              It should give new meaning to the term Woke…

              • Cameron says:

                I remember someone making a comment on YouTube saying that a second civil war in the United States would probably look like the 1936 Spanish Civil War with the left controlling the cities and the right controlling the farmland, rural areas, and suburbs. One commentator I listen to on YouTube says that a second civil war would likely look like the civil war currently going on in Colombia though it will likely be quicker.

        • Fyrfighter says:

          “At some level you know Democrats aren’t really for unrestrained illegal immigration any more than Obama was for taking all your guns back in 2008, despite that being a Republican rallying cry back then”

          Actually LC, I’m gonna have to say you’re 100% wrong on those accounts. Obama did all he could to lay the groundwork for firearms confiscation, including Fast and Furious, an op designed to create a problem with illegal guns, which could then be used to push gun control legislation.

          As for unrestrained illegal immigration, their actions speak far louder than your denials. The dems have done everything they could to thwart this President and all previous Republican ones (since at least Reagan) from doing ANYTHING to limit the illegal invasion of our country

      • NHSparky says:

        If illegals voted Republican, the wall would have been up DECADES ago.

        Come to think of it, Biden was one of those folks against Vietnamese boat people settling in the US. Anyone wanna take a guess why?

  6. Commissar says:

    Amy Coney Barrett believes the state can take the guns away from anyone the state deems “dangerous”.

    She explicitly said that in a previous ruling,

    She is pro-gun rights as a performative choice to stay on Heritage foundation approved lists and elevate her chances at getting appointed to higher courts…

    But she has chosen words that are very consistent with those of a classical conservative; that the sovereign has the authority to do whatever is necessary to govern the people.

    I don’t believe the 2nd Amendment exists so that people can hunt, or protect their homes or even themselves from others…

    I believe the 2nd Amendment exists so the people can protect themselves from government. The ultimate check on a government that has become un-accountable.

    Which makes me the exact kind of gun owner the government would deem as “dangerous”.

    She choose her words carefully. She knew that decision was an audition for higher court appointment and would be scrutinized by the Heritage foundation and every classical conservative ideologue in the Republican Party.

    Your party is facing a reckoning with respect to what it really stands for.

    And you are about to realize that you have been duped into supporting classical conservatism all along.

    Unfortunately, some of you were not duped at all. You fully and willfully embraced it.

    • Mike Gunns says:

      So to go down this rabbit hole, we can assume that you are against all forms of gun control?

      • Mason says:

        Like repeal the NFA and give convicted felons and wife beaters their guns back. Somehow I doubt he’s in favor of any of that.

        • Fyrfighter says:

          One of those three is a good idea Mason… and should be done as soon as conservatives regain the house… Though too many of them are squishy, and won’t do it.

    • Penguinman000 says:

      Yep, her 2019 dissent that it is unconstitutional to have a blanket ban on gun owners convicted of felonies sure is anti gun and pro state.

      http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D03-15/C:18-1478:J:Barrett:dis:T:fnOp:N:2309276:S:0#page=27

      Do you actually ever do any real research or do you just regurgitate talking points you get from your local political officer?

    • gitarcarver says:

      Amy Coney Barrett believes the state can take the guns away from anyone the state deems “dangerous”.

      She did not say that in the least.

      The case was about the state’s ability to ban all felons – even non violent felons – from possessing a firearm as is the case now.

      Coney Barrett opined that failing to show that a felon was or had been dangerous, the state cannot ban them from possessing a firearm.

      In short, felony conviction, then banning dangerous felons from possessing a weapon is what she wrote.

      What is interesting is that liberals have long promoted the idea of “red flag” laws where a person doesn’t even get to defend or respond to an accusation that they should not possess a weapon. Therefore, if there is someone advocating for confiscating weapons from “dangerous” people, it is people of your political ilk.

      • Mason says:

        It’s weird he reads something and gets the exact opposite meaning out of the words, isn’t it?

        • David says:

          Used to call that “boweloptic”… no definition needed.

          • Poetrooper says:

            There’s a corrective procedure for that called an optirectomy, where the surgeon separates the optical nerves and the rectal nerves, eliminating the patient’s shitty outlook…

            • Hondo says:

              There is a second corrective procedure for the condition, PT. It’s called “cranial extraction”.

              I understand it happens on occasion when a liberal who supports gun control gets mugged. (smile)

        • gitarcarver says:

          To be fair, his interpretation was not the first I had seen stating the same thing. It is far more likely that he went with the narrative from left leaning sites / media.

          However, it does show a certain “sloppiness” as others have pointed out.

          Also there is a problem that now that he has been presented the truth, he should say “I screwed up.” One of the things that I feel we have lost in this world is the ability to say “I made a mistake.”

          In my opinion, it is better to admit the mistake than it is to cling bitterly to a statement that is in error.

          But that is just me.

          YMMV.

          • Poetrooper says:

            “In my opinion, it is better to admit the mistake than it is to cling bitterly to a statement that is in error.”

            Carver, based on my own experiences, you just described the difference between most conservatives and most liberals…

    • Blaster says:

      WoW! That was a hell of a twist bro. It’s almost impressive if it wasn’t so ridiculous.

  7. ChipNASA says:

    Hey Claw,
    I need a ruling on the score…

    “U.S. SCAJ ACB MILF”

    OUTTA THE WAY IDC SARC!!!!
    After voting, I got in this line and I’m calling FIRST!!!!!!!!!!

  8. Poetrooper says:

    The Wikipedia definition of Doublethink:

    “Doublethink is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to accept a clearly false statement as the truth, or to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one’s own memories or sense of reality. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy.”

    Sound like anybody we know? Lars constantly demonizes and denounces big government yet champions both a belief system and political party that seek consolidation of ALL power in a strong central government.

    I have long characterized Lars as a hypocrite but I think rgr769 has actually been more correct by pointing out our resident apparatchik’s many examples of Doublethink.

    • rgr769 says:

      You nailed him. He is a big time practitioner of double-think. He is an anarchist while wanting a single party socialist government. Of course, he plans on being a ChiCom collaborator so he can put his Mandarin skilz to use after we become the USSA.

    • E4 Mafia '83-'87 says:

      Well, I doubt Комиссар thinks. He just parrots Leftist talking points from Salon, Vox, Huffpo, and of course twitter. Those are well known sources suffering from intellectual starvation.

    • The Dead Man says:

      Let’s be honest, Lars is the exact sort of person they’ve traditionally liquidated after the revolution was over. The Reds, the original Antifa, the Brown Shirts, the Khmer Rouge’s agitators and if the theory’s true, the Vietcong. (Historians are starting to think the Tet Offensive filled two purposes.)

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        I have tried to warn him.

      • Fyrfighter says:

        Many who have studied the war in Vietnam have thought that for a long time.. Especially in light of the comments by Giap and others that they didn’t need to win the battles, just to outlast the US (paraphrased of course)

    • Penguinman000 says:

      No, no, no. None of us are intelligent/educated enough to grasp the political philosophy he follows. He calls himself “commissar” because others will assume he’s a commie as kind of a joke to himself.

      His political beliefs likely fall along the lines of other “democratic socialist”. They think their beliefs are superior and they blame their elders for “ruining the world and the economy.”

      The ironic part is, even with an undergrad in political science he doesn’t recognize that democratic socialist is an oxymoron. At their core 1. democracy posits that the individual has precedent over the state and 2. Socialism posits that the state has precedence over the individual. Par for the course with his, and his ilk’s, predeliction for Orwellian double speak.

      And cue Lar’s telling everyone “no, you’re too uneducated/stupid/sycophantic to understand the complexities of my political beliefs” in 3….2….1…..

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        He won’t tell. He occasionally says what he is not, but never says what heis, other in the most blatant “glittering generalities” that are obscuring, not informative.

        Mainly, I suspect, so that whomever wins he can claim to have been on their side all along.

        • Penguinman000 says:

          Perhaps he’s been “educated” to the point he simply doesn’t know what he believes. Reactionary identity political think can scramble people’s brains.

          • Hondo says:

            Apparatchiks and useful idiots/fellow travelers don’t bother to think. They merely implement the Left’s doctrine.

            The former sometimes survive a successful revolution – unless, of course, they end up on the wrong side of a bureaucratic battle for control of the resulting dictatorship. For examples, see Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and a list of other Old Bolsheviks.

            Useful idiots/fellow travelers generally are among the first to be “neutralized” after a successful revolution.

  9. Slow Joe says:

    The news was playing on the radio earlier while driving, and I was like, who the hell is Amy Commie Bear?

    Then I remembered I don’t speaka englese.

  10. Sarge says:

    I am seeing all kinds of shit on twitter about “Court Packing” and adding more justices to add things out.

    People do not understand a change of this sort will require an amendment to the US Constitution.

    This is not an easy process as the last Amendment, the ERA, died after a few years. And with today’s political climate, good fucking luck getting it passed.

    • LC says:

      The Constitution doesn’t actually specify the number of SCOTUS justices, and it’s changed over the years. All it takes to change it is passing an act through Congress and signed by the President. The House will almost certainly stay in the D’s hands, and the Senate is unclear, but they have a good chance of taking it. If they get the Presidency, too, it’s within their power -but not necessarily their will- to do it.

      https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained

    • Mason says:

      As LC said, court packing can be done with just a congressional majority and a willing president. Kind of scary how many Democrats seem intent on doing it though. They refuse to remember history and so are condemned to repeat it.

      Just in recent memory, Harry Reid enacts the nuclear option, thinking the Democrats will always be in power. Except they aren’t, then they cry “foul!” when the Republicans play by the rules of the game they themselves created.

  11. gitarcarver says:

    People do not understand a change of this sort will require an amendment to the US Constitution.

    There is no specified number of Justices mentioned in the Constitution.

    Art III Sect. 2:

    In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

    That means the Congress sets the number of Justices. In fact the first sitting of the Court was under the Judiciary Act of 1789, where Congress specified the number of Justices at 6: one Chief Justice and 5 Associate Justices.

    Since then, the Congress has changed the number of Justices several times:

    year 1801 – 5 Justices.
    year 1801 – back to 6 Justices (after an election)
    year 1807 – 7 Justices
    year 1837 – 9 Justices
    year 1863 – 10 Justices
    year 1869 – back to 9 Justices

    In 1937, FDR tried to change the number of Justices on the Court to 10 in order to get his policies through legal challenges, but that failed and the number of Justices remain at 9: 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices.

    The point of all this is that it does not require a Constitutional Amendment to change the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. It only takes an act of Congress.

  12. Edward Scissorhands says:

    I can see a 5-4 decision that both rules that a lack of FTCA subject matter jurisdiction based on non-liability of a private person under state law, and that both Bivens and Section 1983 are invalid after determining joint task forces operate under color of both state and federal law and therefore enjoy the immunities of both, which disadvantages state and federal officers not in those joint task forces

    Named edited to protect PII, again.
    AW1

  13. Edward Scissorhands says:

    Correction: …based on non-liability of a private person under state law triggers the judgement bar,

    Name Edited to protect PII.
    AW1

  14. Sparks says:

    But back to Amy Coney Barrett, wow she’s a hot babe and should be on the Supreme Court for only that reason.