Doug Collins to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Prohibiting Adding Justices to Supreme Court

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Representative Doug Collins is preparing to introduce a constitutional amendment to block potential attempts to add justices to the Supreme Court as some Democrats eye adding seats should President Trump’s upcoming nominee be confirmed.

The amendment would block “court packing,” or adding justices to the Supreme Court, for 10 years after any bill is passed to enlarge the court, a measure Collins said aims to “take the political emotion of the moment out of the way.”

“The proposed amendment—really, it should be a bipartisan issue,” the Georgia Republican said. “We should not have decisions like packing the court to be based on emotional or political decisions.”

“The reason we did it is because it seems like the Democrats, every time they don’t get what they want, they want to change the rules,” Collins added.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doug-collins-introduce-constitutional-amendment-151748192.html

Pot meet kettle goober boy. The Republicans changed the rules when Moscow Mitch decided not to even give Merrick Garland a hearing.

[SoonerPride]

1. Suck it Doug!

We are taking the gloves off

[Liberal In Texas]

2. That isn't going anywhere, and he knows it.

It's just grandstanding and playing to the base.

[2naSalit]

17. He hasn't had any attention for weeks...

must be getting crowded inside his head right about now. He has to find a place to yell in public.

[spanone]

3. won't happen dougie

[texasfiddler]

4. Republicans have enough votes for his amendment?

[regnaD kciN]

6. It wouldn't even be able to pass Congress...

...and it sure as hell wouldn't be ratified by thirty-eight states.

[Roland99]

13. Considering he's in the House....

[Codeine]

20. Who cares?

It won’t get ratified by enough states.

[regnaD kciN]

5. Empty gesture from one with an empty head and an empty soul...

There's no way that such an amendment would get ratified by three-quarters of the states.

[spooky3]

8. And it would never get past the House, before that. Nt

[ChoppinBroccoli]

7. Constitutional Amendments Need A Two-Thirds Majority

And then they have to be ratified by the States. Ain't never gonna happen, Dougie.

[aeromanKC]

9. Great!!

It takes a while to get those things ratified. Meanwhile the Dems will have increased the SCOTUS number to 15 and added 70 Federal judges. And of course already in the Constitution is Ex Post Facto so this Collins amendment cannot apply to the changes Dems make next year, you know because Ex Post Facto.

[bobandrileysmom]

10. Good luck with that

The Constitution

What is an amendment?
An amendment to the Constitution is an improvement, a correction or a revision to the original content approved in 1788. To date, 27 Amendments have been approved, six have been disapproved and thousands have been discussed.

How is the Constitution amended?
Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.

The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

[PTWB]

11. 29 justices would be a nice number.

Let’s hope we win the presidency and senate (even if we don’t win the senate until 2022 which looks more promising). Pack that court deep.

[dem4decades]

12. I'd rather 53, one for each state.

[OAITW r.2.0]

16. +1 The more, the better!

Less net political influence with 53 than 9.

[Yavin4]

22. I'm cool with that number

Makes the most sense.

[tavernier]

14. No, but nice try.

It’s all but a done deal, Dougie. But it was your choice in the end, so quit your bitching.

[texasfiddler]

15. If they are so confident in the election why is he

Bringing this up now?

[trueblue2007]

18. why is he View profile Bringing this up now? BECAUSE ...... he is a Moron !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Volaris]

19. This is the equalivant of begging for a condom because they know they're about to

get fucked with their own dick. And they KNOW where they've stuck that thing previously.

[Takket]

21. Am I missing something or does this not seem bad?

It is a 10 year ban only AFTER a bill enlarges the court. So we still enlarged the court to at least 13 in 2021 to regain our rightful majority, then it stays there for at least 10 years. If anything that protects us from a 2024 rethug just adding four more justices to our 13 to take the majority back.

Or am I missing something???