My first thought was ‘Death panels,’ too…

[shagdrum]

unconstitutional then - it would get struck down.

Unconstitutional? No question.

Will it be struck down? That is a big question.

Traditionally the SCOTUS views the issue of internal rules by the two legislative bodies as "nonjusticable" because the Constitution gives them clear authority in that area. That is what Slaughter and Pelosi are counting on. Weather there are limits to the discretion that the SCOTUS will allow is what will be tested.

With the current makeup of the court, I believe that they would hear the case and strike it down, but what will be the makeup of the court if and when they do hear the case?

I also wouldn't rule out the idea of court packing (ala FDR) with this group of libs in power...

 

[foxpaws]

Unconstitutional? No question.

Will it be struck down? That is a big question.

Traditionally the SCOTUS views the issue of internal rules by the two legislative bodies as "nonjusticable" because the Constitution gives them clear authority in that area. That is what Slaughter and Pelosi are counting on. Weather there are limits to the discretion that the SCOTUS will allow is what will be tested.

Clinton Vs New York - they aren't too concerned about jumping in...

With the current makeup of the court, I believe that they would hear the case and strike it down, but what will be the makeup of the court if and when they do hear the case?

I also wouldn't rule out the idea of court packing (ala FDR) with this group of libs in power...

Who is up next - Stevens? I guess he would be about 90 now. And Obama would just be replacing like liberal justices here. Also with Ginsberg-the most likely next to retire. I don't think there is enough time to pack the court at this time... especially before the next election. And I think by then the GOP will have probably even more votes in the senate - and an effort to 'pack the court' would be filibustered... Plus it is a while before a conservative justice will be retiring, and they are all fairly young... I think Scalia is the oldest - and he is only in his mid 70s...

So, I guess if he went for FDRs silly idea of forced retirement at 70 he might get one judge-but that isn't going to happen. I think you might have to bound and gag Scalia to get him off the bench

However the battle between Roberts and Obama might have some interesting fireworks... it already is fairly tense between them with Obama calling them on the ruling regarding the corporate campaign fund case during the latest State of the Union address...

 

[shagdrum]

Clinton Vs New York - they aren't too concerned about jumping in...

That case dealt with a completely different Constitutional issue.

So, I guess if he went for FDRs silly idea of forced retirement at 70 he might get one judge-but that isn't going to happen. I think you might have to bound and gag Scalia to get him off the bench

FDR's court packing wasn't an issue of "forced retirement".

It was an attempt to increase the number of justices to insert justices favorable to his political agenda...

 

[fossten]

So, I guess if he went for FDRs silly idea of forced retirement at 70 he might get one judge-but that isn't going to happen. I think you might have to bound and gag Scalia to get him off the bench

Is it possible for you to have one post without a lie embedded? Or are you really that ignorant?

 

[foxpaws]

That case dealt with a completely different Constitutional issue.

FDR's court packing wasn't an issue of "forced retirement".

It was an attempt to increase the number of justices to insert justices favorable to his political agenda...

We are both right - he wanted to increase the size of the court - but he also wanted to force retirement on judges over 70...

Known as court packing, FDR submitted a proposal to force mandatory retirement on any Justice over a certain age (which would have eliminated three of his opponents) and to expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12. Congress was outraged that anyone would try to control the Supreme Court like that and suddenly became much less amenable to FDR’s further attempts at legislation. ​

And from Clinton vs The City of New York - and where the court has defined what must happen for a law to become a law...

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became “Public Law 105—33” after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may “become a law.”
​

The case dealt with what steps must happen in congress for a law to be considered 'passed' and end up on the president's desk for his signature. It will be one of the cases used if this goes to the supreme court.

 

[foxpaws]

Is it possible for you to have one post without a lie embedded? Or are you really that ignorant?

He did propose it... sorry foss...

 

[shagdrum]

We are both right

Apparently so. Good catch.

And from Clinton vs The City of New York - and where the court has defined what must happen for a law to become a law...

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became “Public Law 105—33” after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may “become a law.”
​

The case dealt with what steps must happen in congress for a law to be considered 'passed' and end up on the president's desk for his signature. It will be one of the cases used if this goes to the supreme court.

It had been a while since I read that ruling (couple years ago, I think) and I simply assumed it had to do with the non-delegation doctrine through the line-item veto issue it focuses on. I forgot that it dealt with the Presentment Clause of Article I.

Again, good catch.

Still, I don't share your optimism here. The bill needs to be defeated. Get the legislation honestly, or don't enact it.

 

[foxpaws]

Apparently so. Good catch.

It had been a while since I read that ruling (couple years ago, I think) and I simply assumed it had to do with the non-delegation doctrine through the line-item veto issue it focuses on. I forgot that it dealt with the Presentment Clause of Article I.

Again, good catch.

Still, I don't share your optimism here. The bill needs to be defeated. Get the legislation honestly, or don't enact it.

And I am with you - the house needs to just pass the senate bill - without all the smoke and mirrors...

But, I think the smoke and mirrors will go down to defeat if it ends up in the court...

And the retirement thing was weird - if they didn't retire that is when the expansion of the court occurred - FDR would 'force' the judges who didn't retire an 'assistant' that would have full voting rights - expanding the size of the court. Can you see Scalia with a full voting 'assistant' who would be liberal -

 

[fossten]

He did propose it... sorry foss...

Since you're correct, and since you only told half the story, I'll give you a 'solid B+.'