Hacker News Reader

Comment by qingcharles | Hacker News Reader

Right. This is the biggest damage Trump can do because it lasts so long after his presidency.

You can't really tell how long his presidency lasts. Two term limit is just a rule that can be changed with help of judiciary branch. If Americans want him for a third term who'd object?

Trying to reinterpret "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" to allow for that would be quite a spectacular feat of jurisprudence.

It's just 22nd amendment. Can't be more important than the will of the nation. The only question is do the Americans like Trump as much as they like booze or can it be at least made to look like they do.

Theoretically, if changes were put into place to allow a run for a third term (which is highly unlikely given age), then that also opens the door for someone like Obama running again.

Key word here is "elected". Prepare for their justification like "well XYZ is not really an election so...."

Just expanding the court with pure loyalists seems easier.

People don't seem to understand that even Trump's judges still see themselves as JUDGES. They're not going to just make stuff up that's not in the law, and there were several instances in his first term where his own SCOTUS Justices told him to pound sand. It's not so simple as "nominated by Trump == inherently corrupt," much as he'd like it to be that way.

As a counter point, almost all of the Trump decision was "made up." Especially all of the stuff about admissibility of evidence is whole cloth law.

> They're not going to just make stuff up that's not in the law,

The mechanism is that Trump makes up the law, then it's sent to judges and they say "yup, this law is fine and just and in line with US law system".

> Justices told him to pound sand

He learned. Now he selects for loyalty alone.

you must have not heard of Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas and Aileen Cannon

new legislation can be passed at any point by an elected house

Trump is too old at this point.

Only saving grace. Although Putin is just 6 years younger and his strive to leave legacy already messed up the world. One can only wonder what mess will Trump's attempts at leaving legacy cause.

I am not talking about the legacy. The legacy will live one - I mean technically the world has changed post 2016 and it has not gone back since then. And it won't. With 2024 it might change the landscape more.

Well, the size of the Supreme Court is not fixed at nine. A future Democratic president might just work to increase it to give it more balance.

wouldn't that just start an arms race of each side trying to stack the court whenever they're in power?

Yeah, same with ending filibuster and other speculated tactics. I don't think you can close the door behind you without a constitutional amendment, which won't happen.

Yes, but each time diluting the power of the justices individually. Right now if you have one wacko justice who decides on the basis of political ideology instead of some of the established legal theories they have 11% of a say in things. Add another few justices who are relatively normal and the ability of the wacko to swing things into dangerous territory goes down. Even if the tit-for-tat tries to cram more wackos in you have to try to convince the Senate to let more and more obviously terribly choices through.

Are you suggesting the supreme Court should be another House of Congress?

There is no reason why supreme court decisions couldn’t be made more democratically. The law should not be in the hands of a select few elite

Sure but after a few decades of packing we'd eventually end up with a direct democracy where every adult citizen is a Supreme Court justice and the legislative branch would be sidestepped entirely. Seems better than our current system IMO.

Everyone thinks that the Dems and Republicans are different sides, but they are on the same side, money. This has been going on for at least 50 years. Every 5 years I hear this bull shit. IF the dems got in it would be more balanced. Nothing changes until we reevaluate our support for system that doesn't serve us.

Dems at least talk about taking money out of politics. McCain Feyngold was a big step in the right direction but IIRC SCOTUS shut that down hard.

They talk and do nothing, they are supported by the same system of money that reb get. The only difference is of a perceptual nature.

So you're saying that President Trump can appoint as many Supreme Court justices as he would like to in January?

It might take a little more than that to update the Judiciary Act of 1869 that defined the current number of justices on the court.

Ok but the Republicans will have full control of both houses, and can also put aside the filibuster if they would like.

Are you saying it's therefore ok for Trump to pack the courts? That does appear to be the logical extension of your original comment.

FDR tried and members of his own party came out against him.

It’s a non-starter.

There are good reasons to increase the size though, mainly it being one of the smallest Supreme Courts in the world.

“Smallest in the world” doesn’t seem like a good reason at all.

The reason why the Democratic party revolted against FDR attempt to stuff the Supreme Court was because it was such an obvious runaround of the Constituion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com