The senate is the mechanism for this.

Elections have consequences.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Nothing other than the Judiciary Act of 1869. E..g "the law."

Yeah, wasn't clear in my OP take 2.. I copied the OP then added comments gleaned from the other post.

But that was my original question, as in a previous thread here, someone mentioned in passing that the Const. does not establish the court to have 9.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

But what *is* in the Constitution is that Congress is granted the power to make laws governing all things that either aren't enumerated powers granted to another branch or exceed the limits of the Bill of Rights.

And Congress made the law saying it's 9. So it's 9. I think it'd be unambiguously illegal for a President to try to unilaterally violate that law.

Edit: And in the case it was attempted, the lawsuit went the Supreme Court, I find it *very* unlikely that SCOTUS would strike down the Judicial Act of 1869. They're loathe to stomp on Congress unless absolutely necessary (see ObamaCare). And stomping on Congress' regulation of their own court would be a direct attempt to alter the separation of powers. I don't ever see the # of justices changing without Congress passing a law.

Did you come here for an argument, you seem to be trying really hard to get one going, with someone who agrees with everything you have said, and again will.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

Not really an argument. In the OP you pose the question:" Is there any mechanism to stop a POTUS from nominating a bunch more?"

My answer is: Yes. Federal law.

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” US Constitution, Article III, Section 1.

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

That’s all there is except for Article I which refers to a Chief Justice who shall preside over impeachment trial of POTUS.

We have understood this to mean that Congress establishes the number of SCOTUS Justices beyond the Chief Justice. I suppose one could argue that number of SCOTUS Justices is wholly dependent upon the number appointed by POTUS and approved by the Sensate regardless of what legislation Congress enacts. But to change the number at this time would likely require an act of Congress or a SCOTUS decision finding the 1869 act unconstitutional.