General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums28 USC 1
28 U.S. Code § 1 - Number of justices; quorum
-----
Just a reminder that having only 9 Justices on the Court is *NOT* a Constitutional requirement. That number is actually set by federal law -- specifically, the statute cited above.
This law can be changed.
As of today, this option should absolutely 100% be on the table.
MDN
roamer65
(36,747 posts)The present configuration was approved in 1869.
https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court
It is completely at the discretion of Congress.
If there is a reversal of Roe v Wade, I think an increase in the number of justices will become a very popular idea.
SunSeeker
(51,662 posts)roamer65
(36,747 posts)It actually would be a good thing to do, bringing a wider range of views into cases.
SunSeeker
(51,662 posts)They'd have to do some remodeling. The 9 justices barely fit up there right now. They need to expand the courtroom anyway. It is ridiculously small for those who want to view oral argument. Even attirneys there for oral argument are forced to sit claustrophobically close in small armless chairs pushed together with absolutely no room between them. It's crazy.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)President Truman spend most of his presidency in Blair House.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)With nineteen justices, you could divide the court into two nine-member panels, supervised by a Chief Justice who only sits in judgment when there's a vacancy on the court. Because the US is so large, one panel would sit in Washington and the other somewhere on the West Coast - I'm thinking either San Francisco or Portland. This would solve the second-biggest problem the Supreme Court has - there aren't enough hours in a Court term to hear all the cases that need to be heard. (Putting Donald Trump's insane jurists on different panels would solve the biggest problem it has.)
roamer65
(36,747 posts)The original justices had to perform duties outside of DC, in the judicial districts. Present day ones can as well.
SunSeeker
(51,662 posts)Maybe one panel should only hear criminal cases and the other only hear civil cases.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)It will make it harder for litigants to target arguments to specific justices.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)That's completely doable. The court hears arguments for two weeks, then deliberates for two weeks before hearing more arguments. Panel 1 could hear arguments while Panel 2 is deliberating, and vice versa.
dalton99a
(81,568 posts)Grasswire2
(13,571 posts)There are ways here.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)52 stars on the new flag.
beveeheart
(1,370 posts)roamer65
(36,747 posts)53 stars.
beveeheart
(1,370 posts)sounds good.
Igel
(35,348 posts)And those who suggested it deemed racist.
"Columbia" is derived from " Christopher) Columbus".
beveeheart
(1,370 posts)Grasswire2
(13,571 posts)But that kinds spoils the even number.
BadgerMom
(2,771 posts)iluvtennis
(19,868 posts)Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)If the Rethugs get wind of this, they will expand the court and add two more of their Justices before the midterms!
Buckeyeblue
(5,500 posts)How would you decide who goes? Last one on is the first one off? I think 9 is a small number, especially for a group made up of lifetime appointees. What if we went with 50 justices, one from each state. President still appoints but every state must represented. I'm not sure if that is something you could do with that statute or not. The representation requirement may need a constitutional amendment.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)It would take EIGHT to take a case and THEN:
a random draw of NINE to decide the case
That would all but eliminate the sketchy nonsensical "cases" that spring up all over to entice intervention.
Why waste millions of dollars to get your "pet" issue brought to SCOTUS only to have the random draw mean that the deliberators might be from the opposite "side"
BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/
I.e., this is really something that would require that liberals/progressives literally OWN media to influence the masses to support it.