Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 September 30

= September 30 =

Granada: Castille or Aragon
Was Granada part of Castille or Aragon after its conquest in 1492. Was the conquest a Castilian affair or a joint effort by the two kingdoms? Had Ferdinand II’s second marriage produce a surviving son, would Aragon have received any part of Granada?69.209.14.47 (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Castile, see Kingdom of Granada (Crown of Castile). It was sort of a joint effort in that the Catholic Monarchs ruled jointly in a dynastic union but since Castile provided the vast majority of the troops and funds for the war, it annexed all of Granada and I highly doubt Ferdinand II having a son would change that. Also, Aragon had no land access to Granada to begin with due to Castile's ownership of Murcia. StellarHalo (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

SCOTUS questions
Since the nomination of Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court has just enough support in the Senate, it is very likely to succeed and the Democratic Party has openly suggested court-packing in the event that it does. In the highly likely event that Biden win the presidency and Democrats retake the Senate majority in November, a bill to increase the number of justices in SCOTUS from 9 to 11 will definitely pass. In that situation, is it possible for the Supreme Court to stop this by declaring it unconstitutional? or will such attempt be dead on arrival due to the lack of standing?

Also, if Congress in the future decides to decrease the number of justices, would such changes have to wait until the positions become vacant first? StellarHalo (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The US constitution does not say how many justices should be on the Supreme Court, and the number was changed several times in the 19th century by Congress, so yes, it is possible for Congress to increase it again without a constitutional problem. As to the last question, it does say that justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour", which is interpreted to mean for life, if they want, unless removed by impeachment. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Taking your assumptions as givens, and assuming nothing else untoward or unusual in the statute that would expand the Court, judicial attempts to stop it would fail both for standing and political question reasons. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, should the Democrats “pack the court” by raising the number of Justices from 9 to 11... the Republicans will simply raise the number from 11 to 13 as soon as THEY regain power. And then the Democrats will... well you get the picture.
 * No one stays in power indefinitely, and once a “tradition” is broken, it stays broken. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was attempted once, during the FDR administration, and didn't fly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh maybe. My personal opinion is that so long as the so-called “culture wars” persist in American culture, politics will continue to be a race to the bottom. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Such as the public debate over Elvis Presley, in the 1950s. Culture wars are not a "race to the bottom", they're par for the course in any civilization: The old geezers trying to restrict the young whippersnappers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Or fights between competing groups of whippersnappers. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and these children that you spit on, as they try to change their worlds, are immune to your consultations. They're quite aware of what they're going through. -- Jayron 32 11:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court initially only had 6 members. See Supreme Court of the United States. --Khajidha (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)