Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form Request for Hearing
When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on September 18, 2020, many Americans didn't take the proper time to grieve — instead, they panicked nigh what her passing meant for the future of the country. Holding the balance of an entire commonwealth is besides great a brunt for anyone's shoulders, and Justice Ginsburg had been conveying that weight for a long, long time. Instead of holding space for her passing, Republican politicians wasted no fourth dimension in queuing up a nominee for the empty Supreme Court seat, somewhen landing on Amy Coney Barrett — a longtime Notre Dame Law Schoolhouse professor who served fewer than three years on the Seventh Circuit before her nomination to the highest courtroom in the American judicial arrangement.
In 2016, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell infamously vowed to block President Obama's outgoing Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland on the grounds that the American people should have a "voice" and that to rush a nomination (and confirmation) would be to overly politicize the issue. In 2020, however, McConnell didn't concur to those principles he outlined iv years earlier, leading to Barrett'south confirmation hearings and equally rushed swearing in ceremony, which took place about a calendar week before Election Day on Oct 26, 2020.
This move led many to criticize McConnell, including New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC), who simply tweeted, "Aggrandize the courtroom." Additionally, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey (@EdMarkey), who is Ocasio-Cortez'south Green New Bargain co-author, tweeted, "Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election yr. If he violates it, when Democrats command the Senate in the side by side Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court."
The Number of Supreme Court Seats Has Been Adjusted Before — Here's How It's Done
This call for a SCOTUS expansion has led many to wonder: Is such a move even possible? The curt reply: aye. Congress could easily change the number of seats on the Supreme Court bench. Co-ordinate to the Supreme Court's website, "The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress" — just another example of those supposed checks and balances that guide a constitutional government. In fact, the number of Justices has shifted several times throughout the Court's history. In 1789, the offset Judiciary Act set up the number of Justices at half-dozen; during the Ceremonious War, the number of seats went up to 9 and and so briefly 10; and, in one case President Andrew Johnson took role, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act in 1866, cutting the number of Justices to seven then that Johnson couldn't stack the courtroom in favor of Southern states.
Since 1869, however, the Supreme Court has been composed of nine Justices. In semi-recent history, at that place's been one notable attempt to expand the Court — i that will live in infamy, so to speak. Dorsum in 1937, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt aimed to aggrandize the Courtroom, which kept shooting down some of his New Deal legislation. More specifically, FDR felt that many of the older Justices were out of touch with the times, so much so that they were colloquially dubbed the "nine former men."
FDR's proposal? Add together 1 Justice to the Supreme Court for every lxx-year-old Justice residing on the demote. That would've resulted in 15 Supreme Courtroom Justices, only even the Democrat-controlled Congress — and FDR'southward own Vice President — were confronting the idea. Since FDR'south infamous defeat, no attempt to expand or reduce the Supreme Court has gathered much steam — until at present.
Interestingly plenty, Politician points out that President Biden has been outspoken about not expanding the court. In 2019, President Biden even went equally far as saying "we'll live to rue that twenty-four hour period [nosotros expand the Courtroom]," arguing that an expansion would lead to constant changes — more expansions, more reductions. In short, it would shake the American people'south faith in the legitimacy of the Supreme Courtroom (and potentially the Democratic party). Of class, that's simply one scenario — and one that hasn't happened in the past. Just, in the by, Vice President Kamala Harris has shown some support for the idea, maxim she'd be "open" to information technology. Nonetheless, both Vice President Harris and President Biden have also dodged questions surrounding courtroom-packing and Supreme Court expansion.
On the other mitt, more outspoken proponents have tried to gather momentum for the idea. Representative Ocasio-Cortez expanded upon her initial "Aggrandize the Court" tweet, calling out Republicans' hypocrisy toward appointing new Justices during presidential election years. "Republicans do this because they don't believe Dems accept the stones to play hardball like they exercise. And for a long time they've been correct," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. "But do not allow them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal but a response isn't. In that location is a legal process for expansion."
In the face up of a 6–iii Conservative majority, folks like Representative Ocasio-Cortez argue that the Supreme Court is out of balance — and, more than that, it isn't quite reflective of the American people'southward concerns and values. So much lies in the hands of the court: the fate of the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade and matrimony equality, just to name a few. Now, we'll just have to come across if this imbalance — and Barrett'due south speedy appointment — are enough to convince President Biden and members of Congress to seriously consider a Supreme Court expansion.
Source: https://www.ask.com/culture/ask-answers-expand-supreme-court?utm_content=params%3Ao%3D740004%26ad%3DdirN%26qo%3DserpIndex
0 Response to "Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form Request for Hearing"
Post a Comment