Didja know the Supreme Court once had 10 justices?

[TreasonousBastard]

It started with 6, and grew to 10 by 1863. Because of Reconstruction woes and hatred of Andrew Johnson, it was to be reduced by attrition to in 7 1866, but in 1869 became 9.

And that's where it's been-- since 1866.

It grew to 10 because of the increased workload, but in 1866, 13 of the present states hadn't yet been admitted. And California was growing, but nothing like it is now. Hell, we didn't even own Alaska and Hawaii in 1866, or whatever stuff we got from the Spanish-American war. To say nothing of all the other changes since then.

So, yeah expanding the Court would probably be a good thing just as a practical matter. Term limits, and/or mandatory retirements might not be bad, either.

What could go wrong? Well, for one thing, expanding the Court would give it the ability to review more cases, which means it just might take closer looks at things we may not want them to look at. And, just how much to expand it? If it were to grow to the same extent as the country has grown, we could be looking at hundreds of justices, so that makes little sense.

Anyway, it is entirely up to Congress how to configure the federal court system, and a Congress with a bit of smarts and guts might come up with something worthwhile.

[CrispyQ]

1. A DUer jokingly suggested we cut the Court back to the original six seats,

& get rid of the last three.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Yes, and I'll tell you where I found out.

It was in the novel "Lincoln," by Gore Vidal. I thought it was a typo.

[MuseRider]

9. What a good book!

I read that oh so long ago that I remember little but how good I thought it was. Time to check it out and listen to it. I loved Gore Vidal's books.

[nuxvomica]

3. Thirteen seems right because there are that many circuits

Justices now have to be assigned to administer more than one circuit.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. One could argue the circuits could could use some expansion, too.

[crickets]

7. +1

[JT45242]

5. One for each appeals circuit is historical and sensible

So, the rethugs will fight it every step of the way.

But 13 is an ideal number. It makes it highly unlikely that a one term president could pack 33 percent of the court.

[crickets]

6. I liked the suggestion that the number of SC justices be adjusted

to match the number of circuit courts, which is currently 13. That sounds reasonable.

[Bettie]

8. I believe we should have enough justices to run a minimum

of two randomly assigned panels at any given time.

So, 14 would give two seven judge panels. They could handle more cases and it would be difficult to tailor arguments to appeal to a particular justice as they wouldn't be guaranteed to be on your case.

It would also allow for conflicts of interest to be dealt with in a neutral way. Instead of recusal, they just aren't seated on that case.

[Sneederbunk]

10. An even number is not a good idea.