Excuse me but to my knowledge the House is not needed for appoint judges, the president nominates and the Senate votes to appoint. The Senate would simply need a majority and I'm pretty sure Dems have the majority in the Senate.

[–] ski11erboi@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately the dems do not have a true majority in the senate either. It hasn't been as easy as we hoped to get everyone on the same page.

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Damn. If only the system gave representation per capita instead of for arbitrary reasons to get slave owners to agree. Shucks. I guess we just have to accept it and get back to work. /s obviously.

[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm fairly sure they would need the house to expand the court and add more justices.

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I think you're probably right as it looks to be something involving the Judiciary Act of 1869 but I've also heard that only the senate is needed to do this even today.

Obviously not a lawyer and ultimately it could have been done by Dems prior to the midterms so they would still be responsible for not packing the court earlier.

[–] ahnesampo@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The House is not needed to appoint justices, but the size of the Supreme Court is set by federal law, and you need the House to change that law to go beyond nine justices.

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm sorry but I can't find anything on there being law setting the size of the Supreme Court but only precedent.

Would you happen to have the name of this law?

Found it and it looks like FDR had some fights of a very similar nature.