Why? The number is purely arbitrary. The U.S. has become vastly bigger and more complex since that number was set. Having more justices would reduce the power of any single justice. Gathering the votes to achieve a majority would require more negotiation and compromise if there were, say, 15 or 17 justices, and generally would be more likely to reach more moderate decisions. More seats would bring in people with broader legal and life experience. Term limits of 18 or 20 years would also ensure a rational, predictable turnover. Scalia served 30 years, Ginsburg 27 years. The idea that somebody should be able to park forever unto death in a job that touches all our lives runs counter to the norms in every other government and private sphere.
Ed Justice Barrett
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
Why? The number is purely arbitrary. The U.S. has become vastly bigger and more complex since that number was set. Having more justices would reduce the power of any single justice. Gathering the votes to achieve a majority would require more negotiation and compromise if there were, say, 15 or 17 justices, and generally would be more likely to reach more moderate decisions. More seats would bring in people with broader legal and life experience. Term limits of 18 or 20 years would also ensure a rational, predictable turnover. Scalia served 30 years, Ginsburg 27 years. The idea that somebody should be able to park forever unto death in a job that touches all our lives runs counter to the norms in every other government and private sphere.
On what basis would anyone be impeached? That would require proof of extraordinary misconduct, not just voting for decisions that somebody doesn't like.
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
I would start by removing any Justice who was not elected by the required 60 votes in the Senate.
All federal judges are appointed for life "on good behavior." Nobody gets to just remove them. And 60 votes was only required by a Senate rule that the Senate changed. Nothing about it in the Constitution.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Well, since impeachment is largely political, it can be done in whatever the Congress critters think is relevant... Wearing a tan suit, using the wrong kind of mustard, receiving oral sex....
In theory they could impeach drunky mcrapeface for lying during his confirmation hearing. (that would be awesome... The history textbooks would have to contain definitions for "devil's triangle").
Only problem is impeachment would require more than just a simple senate major and u can't see the democrats getting anywhere near that number.
Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Re: number of judges vs number of circuits...
Right now, each circuit is assigned to a supreme Court judge. Some judges are responsible for more than one circuit. Make it 13 judges and each has their own circuit.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
While currently there are more circuit courts than supreme Court justices, it might make some sense to establish some sort of equality.
Right now, each circuit is assigned to a supreme Court judge. Some judges are responsible for more than one circuit. Make it 13 judges and each has their own circuit.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx
9 may be a good number. But it is also good to have a court who's composition reflects the interests of the general population. Right now those concepts are in conflict. Of those 2 issues, I think the "9 is a good number" takes second priority.
Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Many changes were not related to political concerns and the size of the court was directly tied to the number of circuit courts.
The Supreme Court was originally 6, which matched the 6 circuits. Each Supreme Court Justice is assigned to a circuit (more than one now). Until the late 1800s, Supreme Court Justices were required to ride their assigned circuit to hear appeals. Justice were traditionally appointed with judges residing in the area covered by the circuit to which they would be assigned.
In 1801, the Supreme Court was reduced to five with changes to how appeals would be handled in the circuits. But that was repealed 1802 and the Supreme Court restored to 6 without the 1801 changes having any affect. That was all political with the lame-duck Adams and the Federalists try to establish judicial power before Jefferson took over, and Jefferson subsequently trying to undo those actions (which led to Marbury v. Madison).
When the number of circuits was increased to 7, the Supreme Court was increased to 7. When increased to 9, the Supreme Court was increased to 9.
When increased to 10, the Supreme Court was increased to 10. This abolished the short-lived California circuit.
Republican Lincoln ran with Democrat Johnson as his Vice President. After Lincoln was assassinated, the Republican controlled Congress didn't like the way Johnson was handling reconstruction. When a Supreme Court seat opened, they restructured the circuits into 9 circuits. They considered reducing the seats to 9 (to take away a Johnson appointment and to resolve the issue of a possible tie vote), but they decided to further further reduced it 7 to keep Johnson from getting any appointments (and in part from Justice Chase trying to justify a raise for himself).
After Grant was elected, Congress restored the number of seats to 9 to match the number of circuits.
They circuits got replaced by the district courts and the courts of appeals, which had the appellant authority of a Supreme Court Justice. Eventually Supreme Court Justices were no longer required to ride the circuit at all.
By the time new districts were added, Supreme Court Justices were no longer so closely tied to the circuits and no new Supreme Court seats were added and it has remained at 9 ever since.
Other than the reduction to 7 during the Johnson administration, the number of Justices was always tied directly to the number of circuits. But it stopped being increased when the district and appellant courts took over much of the circuit work that Justices had previously done.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,868
One argument is that you want the SC to remain unable to deal with many cases per year, to disincentivise frivolous appeals.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Feels like that would just clog up the system.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
But they don't divvy up the work, do they? Aren't all cases heard by all of them? Whether there are nine or fifty judges it'll still be the same number of cases. But the more judges there are the longer each case will take as there will be more to ask questions, more organization, more writing, and more coordination of schedules.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's still one Supreme Court. Having more judges on the bench won't make it work any faster. Probably the opposite. Besides, not every legal matter needs to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Most appeals are going to be decided by a lower court anyway.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,650
And you would need the senate processing more than 5 times as many SC nominees. Won't that be fun?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
They seem to go pretty quick when they want to.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I mean, if it keeps them from getting anything else done...
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,650
OK, now I'm sold on the idea.
That actually took longer than I thought. I legit thought the first legal action would have happened already.
If the Dems take the house, the senate and the white house, they can just pass a bill that limits federal spending in states that outlaw or restrict abortion. That's just off the top of my head, I assume there are other ways for the full federal government to protect a woman's right to medical care even if the Supreme Court does not require the states to protect that right.
Sure, that is subject to change down the road, like the ACA, but it does forestall the current issue.
Sure, that is subject to change down the road, like the ACA, but it does forestall the current issue.
... which some red state will immediately challenge in Federal Court, which will then be overturned by the Theologian Court of the United States.