Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

CHIEF JUSTICE Roberts has a seizure

anabolicrhino

anabolicrhino

Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed

I was wondering with all due respect to the mans health, why is a man who has a history of brain seizures sitting on our highest court?

Ultimately a 4-4 split nullifies the supreme courts power- YIKES!
 
Its better than Senator Byrd. How anyone could still vote for him is beyond me.
 
I wish Roberts the best. I dont always like his views, but the man is undoubtedly brilliant and capable as a Chief Justice.

And I've said it before, doesnt anyone see the Sith-Lord Palpatine resemblance in Sen Byrd? Scary stuff :)
 
anabolicrhino said:
Invalid Link Removed

I was wondering with all due respect to the mans health, why is a man who has a history of brain seizures sitting on our highest court?

Ultimately a 4-4 split nullifies the supreme courts power- YIKES!
Click to expand...

There's no law limiting the seats to 9. There's just institutional inertia. A president with enough balls and a compliant congress could get more people on the court or not fill vacated positions and let it shrink. My guess though is we're stuck with the 9 seats for quite some time. Seeing as how they only meet for such a limited time, any health problems are a minor nuisance I think.
 
It is ironic how the youngest guy there...and the one who seems to be well tolerated by both sides of the isle..has a seizure.
 
CDB said:
There's no law limiting the seats to 9.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm yes there is. The Judicial Circuits Act of 1869 set 9 seats as the law.

Invalid Link Removed

This law can be changed by Congress but it's been that way for 138 years.

And BTW, my first thought when I heard about Roberts was "good, I hope he lingers in a comma until February 2009."
 
yeahright said:
Ummmmm yes there is. The Judicial Circuits Act of 1869 set 9 seats as the law.

Invalid Link Removed

This law can be changed by Congress but it's been that way for 138 years.

And BTW, my first thought when I heard about Roberts was "good, I hope he lingers in a comma until February 2009."
Click to expand...

Great. Now I get to bean my old law prof for misinforming me.

Or maybe he simply meant congress can change the number of associates. Either way I stand corrected.
 
CDB said:
Great. Now I get to bean my old law prof for misinforming me.

Or maybe he simply meant congress can change the number of associates. Either way I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

He probably meant that there wasn't a constitutional mandate. That makes sense in the context of your statement. It's just a federal statute...they could change it anytime they want (as opposed to the tortuous process of amending the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top