0
Answer
Congress set the number of US Supreme Court justices at nine in the Judiciary Act of 1869.
Explanation
Article III of the US Constitution only states that there is to be a Supreme Court. It does not say how many justices are supposed to serve at one time. Congress determines the number of Justices needed to handle the caseload of the Supreme Court. When the Court was first established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, it originally seated just six Justices: one Chief Justice, and five Associate Justices. The number expanded to seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase requested the number be reduced to seven by attrition, meaning three of the ten Justices would not be replaced when they left the court. Congress granted this request in the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866, and the Court size subsequently declined by two members. Many historians suggest the real reason for the reduction in the number of justices was Congress' effort to thwart President Andrew Johnson and prevent him from nominating anyone to the Supreme Court during his administration. This claim tends to be supported by the timing and frequency of new Judiciary Acts. It should also be noted that the number of justices on the Court never declined below 8, following the Judiciary Act of 1866.
The Judiciary Act of 1869 (not to be confused with earlier Acts of the same name) fixed the number of seats at nine, where it has remained since.
- Judiciary Act of 1789: Court size 6
- Judiciary Act of 1801: Court size, 5
- Repeal Act of 1802: Court size, 6
- Seventh Circuit Act of 1807: Court size, 7
- Judiciary Act of 1837: Court size, 9
- Tenth Circuit Act of 1863: Court size, 10
- Judicial Circuit Act of 1866: Court size, 7
- Habeas Corpus Act of 1867: Court size, 8
- Judiciary Act of 1869: Court size, 9
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937, in order to facilitate support for his New Deal Policies. Roosevelt's plan called for adding one additional Justice for each existing Justice who reached the age of 70 years, 6 months, but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum capacity of 15 Justices. Congress successfully defeated the Court-packing Plan, but the Justices gradually accepted the New Deal, making alterations to the Court unnecessary. Eight of the nine Justices died during Roosevelt's tenure, allowing him to create a majority that approved of his policies.
The current composition of the Supreme Court is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
What else can I help you with?
Why can legislature check Presidents nomination of supreme court justices?
The constitution requires that supreme court justices be approved after the president nominates them by "advice and consent". Therefore, the congress can deny the candidate put forth by the president.
Who is chooses the chief Justice?
The Chief Justice position is put forth by the president and approved by congress. The same way all Supreme Court justices.
The powers of congress include the right to constitute the tribunals inferior to the supreme court to call forth what?
to call forth the militia/army.
What are 2 requirements to join the supereme court?
To join the Supreme Court of the United States, a person must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Additionally, there are no specific qualifications or requirements in terms of age, education, or profession set forth in the U.S. Constitution for justices of the Supreme Court.
What Article of the Constitution gave Congress the authority to create a federal court system?
Article III relates to the Judicial branch of government, and mandates creation of the Supreme Court. It also authorizes Congress to create federal judicial system below the Supreme Court, but not set forth rules for accomplishing this goal.---Article I addresses the role of the Legislative branch in government, and, again, empowers Congress to create Article I and III courts and tribunals, as the need arises.Article II of the Constitution addresses the authority of the President and the Executive branch of government. One power assigned the President is the ability to nominate US Supreme Court justices and Article III federal judges, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate.Each of the first three Articles discusses the courts to one degree or another, but none "set up rules for the federal court system." The Constitution creates a framework for government and describes the enumerated and separate powers of the various branches, and how they interrelate, but does not provide much specific instruction for day-to-day operation.
Can a US Supreme Court justice propose a bill to Congress?
No, technically a court can only "interpret" the laws set forth by the legislature. However, some "activist" courts have taken it upon themselves to give a whole new meaning to the law, effectively enacting one that the legislature never intended.
How do justices get their jobs and what are the requirements?
U.S. Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed with the advice and consentof the Senate.Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says, "The Constitution does not set forth any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate anyone to serve. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate, meaning that a majority of that body must find that person to be a suitable candidate for a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court."Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_US
What recent piece of legislation put forth by the Obama administration was just upheld by the Supreme court?
In late June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that healthcare reform, the Affordable Care Act (sometimes called "Obama-Care"), was constitutional.
Who appoints U.S. justices?
The appointment and confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps set forth by the United States Constitution, which have been further refined and developed by decades of tradition. Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate. Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court.
What role does the US Supreme Court play in enacting new laws?
The Supreme Court does not issue laws. The purpose of the court is to interpret the laws, not create them. Making federal law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch, Congress, which comprises the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court is the head of the Judicial branch; the Executive branch includes the President, Vice-President and cabinet members.The Supreme Court only interprets the laws and the Constitution.George Washington invited the first Supreme Court to issue opinions advising on laws under consideration by Congress. The court declined to do so, citing the language in the Constitution that limits its jurisdiction to "cases and controversies" and reasoning that pre-enactment advisory opinions would not involve real cases or controversies.Since then, a law must be fully enacted before it can come to the court for constitutional review or, in other words, be a real case or controversy affecting real people.AnswerTechnically a court can only "interpret" the laws set forth by the legislature. However, some "activist" courts have taken it upon themselves to give a whole new meaning to the law, effectively enacting one that the legislature never intended.Courts do have the power to invalidate laws if they are unconstitutional. Since this power was intended by the founders (see the Federalist Papers) that power can hardly be called "activist." Moreover, some people insist it is "activism" when the Supreme Court vindicates fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. For example, when in 1954, the Supreme Court struck down school segregation laws for violating equal protection guaranteed in the Constitution, many people accused the court of activism because legislatures had failed to do the same.The term "activist" is therefore a dangerous one to accept as descriptive of the court. In recent years, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court has reversed many long standing judicial precedents by issuing ruling that critics say have no other justifying virtue but that of applying rightwing political preference to all citizens through judicial fiat.The role of average citizens in this process may have been best expressed by future Supreme Court member Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who wrote in 1869 that judges decide cases on "the felt necessities of the times." In other words, you can expect justices coming from corporate law backgrounds to feel the necessities of the times from the perspective of corporate leaders and justices coming from civil rights backgrounds to see the felt necessities of the times from the perspective of the movement for civil rights they participated in. Justices who gained their seat by political services are likely to see felt necessities of times from the perspective of their sponsors. This is not always true, there are examples in history of exactly the opposite being true, but on today's court, examples of the justices described above can be found and used to fairly reliably predict how they will rule based on who the litigants are. Human reasoning, after all, takes place in the human context.
What has the power to determine or not a law Congress makes conforms to the intended framework of the US Constitution?
The power to determine whether a law made by Congress conforms to the US Constitution lies primarily with the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. Through the process of judicial review, the Court evaluates the constitutionality of laws and can strike down those that are found to be in violation of the Constitution. This system of checks and balances ensures that legislative actions remain within the framework set forth by the Constitution.
Why does the Supreme Court of Canada allow blatantly flawed line-up identification to stand in the Eric Biddle case where almost all the other suspects were not even men?
The Supreme Court of Canada has made no such allowance.In the case of Eric Ralph Biddle v. Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appeal court and allowed an appeal based on the fact that the Crown had attempted to put forth evidence that the defence to which the defence would not have the chance to respond. The Supreme Court made no comments on the above question with its decision on R. v. Biddle.
