Can the House defund the Supreme Court?

[Goodheart]

Just wondering.... and I'm too lazy right now to do my own research.

I want to punish those bastards!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Probably not.

The Constitution says there's a Supreme Court, and if there wasn't any money there wouldn't be one - so it would be unconstitutional to defund the Supreme Court. However, Marbury v. Madison says the Supreme Court decides what's constitutional and what isn't, so if there was no Supreme Court, who would decide that having no Supreme Court would be unconstitutional? Probably the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which would effectively become the Supreme Court because there would be nobody to appeal to.

[Yeehah]

30. The Senate doesn't seem to care

The Senate is supposed to advise/assent the President's Supreme Court nominees. Funny how they didn't do that for President Obama. Maybe that Constitution thingy only applies to Democrats.

[SCantiGOP]

2. You want to abandon the rule of law?

Trump would love that.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Trump would dig into his own pocket

to pay the salaries of five of them.

[AZ8theist]

11. Yeah right...

Trump only pays to one thing....himself

[customerserviceguy]

12. And you think this wouldn't benefit him? n/t

[AZ8theist]

28. Of course it would benefit him...

Doturd does NOTHING that DOESN'T BENEFIT HIMSELF.
He is the epitome of a self serving scumbag.

[csziggy]

13. Nah, he never uses his own money for anything

He'd set up a GoFundMe for his followers to pay for his chosen judges - then he'd take at least ten percent off the top for administrative fees.

[customerserviceguy]

14. Hmm, good point

In any case, he'd make sure his black-robed lackeys are looking out for his sorry ass.

[demosincebirth]

26. I doubt it. He stiffs everyone he can.

[hlthe2b]

3. Only in our dreams... Justice Thomas might be relegated to collecting coins outside the SCOTUS

in a COKE can...

[customerserviceguy]

10. I almost missed what you did there

by a hair.

[demosincebirth]

27. You got to be ol enough to remember Thomas, the pervert, by a hair.

[customerserviceguy]

29. Oh, I am

and I remember all the ladies in my office saying, "Yeah, you're a little bit like that." So, I cleaned up my act.

[demosincebirth]

31. Good for you

[customerserviceguy]

32. Sometimes

you need a good example of a bad example to be able to see something about your own life.

[NutmegYankee]

4. Partially - they cannot remove salary from judges.

They could reduce staff expenses and budget, but the Constitution is quite clear that compensation (salary) can't be diminished while a judge is in Office.

[sarisataka]

5. No but maybe

Congress can declare the justices in contempt and hold them until they rule correctly

[cstanleytech]

6. Given the Repugnants manipulation to stack the court I think our only solution once we regain

the Presidency and the majority in Congress is to increase the number of SCOTUS seats from 9 to 17.
After all the Repugnants should not be rewarded for what they have done which is what doing nothing would be doing.

[BigmanPigman]

8. That is the only solution that I can see.

[Polybius]

16. And what happens if in 2028 we elect another Republican?

He or she will just say "I see your 17, and I raise to 29."

[cstanleytech]

17. So we should let them be rewarded?

[Polybius]

18. No

But if we raise, they will raise. Keep it at 9, they won't get any more Justices in Trump's final year and a half.

[cstanleytech]

19. And if they do? Lets say Ginsburg should die and Thomas retires then they get a 6 majority which

for atleast 20 years or more.

[Polybius]

20. I don't even want to think about that

Thankfully, there wasn't even a hint of a rumor of anyone retiring this June.

[cstanleytech]

21. Well you might want to consider it because its possible that could happen and then what? Should

we let them get away with it or should our guys take action to increase the number of SCOTUS seats to bring the court back into balance?

[Polybius]

23. Only if there is a vacancy and Trump fills it

I wouldn't do 17 either, I'd do 11 or 13.

[cstanleytech]

24. Hmm I like the idea of 13 as that was also the number of the first states.

[graeme_macquarrie]

25. So how does this make us better than them?

If both parties are willing to manipulate the make-up of the supreme court to achieve their own political ends, why would voters see any difference between us and the republicans?
Please consider that neither party has a majority of registered voters. Elections are decided by the unaffiliated voters siding with either party

[OliverQ]

7. No, but they can eliminate all the other Federal courts.

The Constitution only requires a Supreme Court. Congress decides the number and make-up of the rest of the federal courts. If Dems had they Senate, the could take a court that McConnell packed with right-wingers and either eliminate the court, are change the number of justices on the court.

[Volaris]

22. My guess would be...maybe?

Cut it's funding probably?(same as the navy---Constitutionally Mandated that it exist in some functional form)...


Congress can OUTRIGHT pass laws totally eliminating the standing Army tho, as far as I know (NOT Constitutionally Mandated), ...to your OP, the federal district courts are completely a creation of Congress, and Congress can expand, contract, or eliminate them as Congress damnwell sees fit.

I'm in no way suggesting messing around with them is a GOOD IDEA.