Nofix said:I just thought of another question: what if the new 15 member supreme court (or a later one) found that expanding the court was unconstitutional? I'm guessing hilarity would ensue.
Worse still, you've now got 15 Justices. You can't force them to retire. And you can't change the size of the court. What do you do? Or are they compelled to retire, having been appointed in an essentially illegal manner?
It had seven for quite awhile, too.JRScott said:No, no it hasn't. It has since 1863 but before then it was more malleable. Originally it only had 6 seats.
When it did have six, how did they resolve ties?
Plumber said:Personally, I think the Supreme Court should have 13 members because America Fuck Yeah! 13 colonies.![]()
The trouble is, what happens in the ATLs where there aren't 13 Colonies?
More seriously, presuming additional "packing" is prohibited by law & The Fifteen don't simply handwave themselves back to the Original Nine, what difference does it actually make? Does this change SCotUS processess? Does it change the outcome of cases? First to come to mind is Miller, which dealt with the Second Amendment...