maddogdrivethru.net

... 60 votes in the Senate ...

Well, to me it is interesting that a fairly simple path to blowing up SCOTUS does exist. And it is similar in structure to the path the Brits used to blow up with House of Lords. Add enough like thinking members to the body to be able to get them to vote your way. Now in the event, the Lord's believed the threat to be credible and decided to blow themselves up. But SCOTUS can't do that. Congress can. And it doesn't take a Constitutional amendment. A simple majority vote could add as many members as desired. But then you also need a like thinking resident to appoint like thinking justices. So, given a majority in both houses and a like thinking resident, the deed can be done. And while that would only temporarily push the court over to one side, the damage will have been done. The idea that it is ok for congress to reset the court to their way of thinking, would be set in precedent. Then every time either party has the pre-requisites in place, they add more justices ASAP to get the court set for their agenda. The idea of an independent SCOTUS would be dead.

Already de muc rats have shown the idea that external parties can threaten a court with action against that court, in order to get that court to decide cases in line with the thinking of the threateners has been demonstrated. The filing of the brief is not a comment in a back alley, off the record ... or even one person speaking on tee vee ... it is a legal document ... making a threat against the court if the court does not decide in a manner the brief writers think proper. Goes against the whole idea of the purpose of a judge. Unacceptable. Yet, the glove has been removed and the step taken.

In the past, either "side" had an equal chance in the game of appointing justices. Sometimes you got lucky and got more ... sometimes not ... but it was an equal chance and there are a chance you could not change the balance. With the new ... "let's add however many it takes now" ... idea ... there is no downside ... it just happens ... well no downside unless the people object.

... What is this supposed " fairly simple path to blowing up SCOTUS ...

haha .. the description of the path is contained in the words within your post ... within the quoted part !!

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., blasted his Democratic colleagues on Wednesday for sending a stern and unusual warning to the Supreme Court earlier this week in connection with a gun case.

Judiciary Committee members Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., along with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., wrote in a brief filed Monday that the "Supreme Court is not well.” They suggested the court “heal itself” or face public pressure to be “restructured.”

Graham said this was a clear reference to expanding the number of justices on the court to make it more liberal.

“When you hear Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme Court….....they are talking about making the Court more liberal,” Graham said in a Wednesday tweet that linked to a Fox News article about the brief. “This has been a Dream of the Left for decades. I will do everything in my power to ensure that dream is NEVER fulfilled!”

... Well what are the actual lines in the Constitution which make this possible? ...

Are you not a scholar ?

I will demonstrate the process ...
==

Art I (legislative), sec 8, para 18 gives congress general legislative powers ...

Art III (judicial) no where specifies the number of justices that will comprise the court.

==
The judicial act (passed by congress) in 1789 specified six justices.

In the 19C Congress changed the number of justices on the court several times ... in 1869 the number was set to 9 where it remains today.

So the precedent that the Constitution gives the congress the power to set the number of justices is clearly established and has never been challenged.

That said, sitting in your capitol and voting on changing the number ... is a different action from sending official legal documents to the court ... threatening them with action if they do not vote the way you desire ... two very different behaviors in my book. And I would suspect every member of the court is furious with the overt attempt at judicial interference on the part of those senators. Whether they keep their public mouths shut about it or not.

You don't think the muc rats threatening the court if the court doesn't vote there way is much of an issue ? You don't think the Senate trying to interfere in the judicial decision making process of the court is an issue ? Arguably it is treason.

==

You don't have an issue with the muc rats adding another 9 members of the likes of hussein and hildabest and mewlyer and his cronies ... so ensure the court will vote their way ?? Technically they could do that. And technically they could do it over and over again.