I used to be against expanding the Supreme Court, but ever since Trumpedo took over, and given

[MarineCombatEngineer]

the blatantly unamerican decisions by this rogue court, I'm now in favor of expanding it when we take over the House, Senate and Executive branches of the govt. to right this sinking ship.

What say you?

[EnergizedLib]

1. Fight fire with fire

Expand to 13, four young, liberal justices. Take the country back.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

2. Agreed. nt

[Aviation Pro]

3. Six

One to torment and abuse each one of those six vile motherfuckers.

We need stone cold pipehitters.

[homegirl]

40. First order of

business ..RESCIND CITIZENS UNITED!

[JT45242]

4. Expand to 13 to match appeals courts -- every judge assigned 1 court of appeals

It would make sense.

I also want real judicial reform especially ethics with bite for penalty.

[Soul_of_Wit]

41. Congress can reform XCOTUS ethics right after they heal themselves

Congress needs ethical reform so that they have the moral authority to provide checks and balances. Insider trading is currently legal for folks with a lot of inside information.

[JT45242]

42. Agreed -- we need ethics laws with teeth for all branches of government

I was sticking to the judiciary because of the OP.

Insider trading, emoluments, lobbyist revolving door, citizens united and legal bribes or "tips"

lots of ethics laws need to be written and enforced.

[ImNotGod]

5. Just the threat of a serious attempt to expand the court tempered the fascists blocking FDR's programs

"reined them in" so to speak. It might work again just by attempting it as it scares the hell out of the fascist court majority, losing power is their worst fear.

[OLDMDDEM]

6. I felt the same way. We need four more justices.

[Ponietz]

7. When SCROTUS says the sky is green for the 500th time it's already an existential necessity

The dissonance between their sophistry and the plain meaning of words is untenable. We should certainly try to fix it before the entire thing collapses in on itself.

[lavoosh99]

27. SCROTUS Six Corrupt Ratbastards Of The United States n/t

[Scubamatt]

8. Absolutely

And the first thing we reverse is Citizen United.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

11. Followed by a shit load of other recent unamerican decisions by these 6 traitors to the US Constitution. nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. There can be no restoration of lost rights or repair of the damage of the Trump era without court expansion

And killing the filibuster to do so.

Whatever else is on anyone’s wish list for the future when Dems have the trifecta again, none of it is possible without expanding the court first.

Court expansion must be the one and only litmus/purity test for Dem candidates.

We must only elect Dems, especially Dem senators, who have the courage to kill the filibuster to pass court expansion.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

12. Agreed. nt

[Wednesdays]

10. I'm okay with it as long as it doesn't invite the GOP to do the same.

And what are you willing to bet that the current SCOTUS would strike down any court expansion, given that it can't come from a Constitutional Amendment?

[in2herbs]

28. No constitutional amendment is required to expand the USSC. The number of judges is set by Congress. nt

[Wednesdays]

39. That's the problem.

The Court can't strike down a Constitutional Amendment, but they can strike down an act of Congress.

[lastlib]

45. The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the number of SCOTUS members.

And also to set its jurisdiction, except for certain constitutional original jurisdiction. Simple soluton is to remove its jurisdiction over any case involving the number of members. It's superfluous, but WTH? CYA, JIC they try to get creative.

[Wednesdays]

50. Yes, they are very good at "getting creative." nt

[Soul_of_Wit]

48. What you are saying is that XCOTUS can ignore the constitution, again

Ideally, Congress would pass the Recusal Act first. Clearly, the Extreme Court shouldn't be able to rule to retain its own size.

[Wednesdays]

53. There have been a lot of things they "shouldn't do" lately.

But have done anyway.

[Mister Ed]

13. Like you, I wouldn't say this lightly, but it must be done. n/t

[Ferryboat]

14. Expand to 13,

Allow EVERY President 1 pick and rotate out senior member until current group is replaced. This will stop the dog a pony show of hearings in congress.
Set a term limit.
Needless to say details need to be worked out.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. I am in favor of expanding the number of SCOTUS members

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. I'm in favor of aligning with the number of circuit courts. That would take us to 13.

It's a reasonable basis for doing so. But I certainly wouldn't want it done quite yet!

[Karma13612]

18. Exactly! On both counts.

Needs to be done once we have a Democratic president again. Dems deserve a fair shake considering that SOB got 3 slots to fill, and Mitch (is he still in the hospital??) denied Obama his picks.

[Soul_of_Wit]

49. Mitch may be too far gone to remember what he did

...but we remember what he did. I still think Obama's worst moment was not creating a constitutional crisis by naming a SCOTUS pick anyway. No advice and consent equal no say in the matter. Force the then Supreme Court to rule on what Mitch did.

[Karma13612]

17. Absolutely support expanding it.

I was for it, even before the more odious rulings in the last couple years.
We need to have at least one Justice for each of the Federal ?Circuit?District? Courts, for work load alone. Our justice system is overburdened and understaffed.

Delays from weeks to months to years is just not acceptable. As the old saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied.

[Farmer-Rick]

19. Many countries have a lot more judges

On their version of a Supreme Court. I think the average size is 15 or more. 8 or 9 seems to be the smallest, while some have over 100 judges on their top courts.

I say the bigger the better. The bigger they are the harder it is to rig them and keep them rigged.

[NBachers]

20. In principle no; in response to the current fascist SC majority, we gotta do it.

[AverageOldGuy]

21. Say there old jarhead - - -

-- - how is the married life?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. Not married yet, happening on July 4th but enjoying the bliss of my upcoming union

with my fiancé.

[HappyH]

47. I am very happy for you MCE, you are a good man.

I hope you guys have many happy years going forward,

[duckworth969]

22. 13, one for each Circuit

Rotation system of some sort, age out (not popular for many), govt watchdog for corruption accountability similar to all other judges in our country, bye bye shadow docket.

Finally, if Alito is rude from the bench, he gets bitch slapped three times by a pro.

[FakeNoose]

24. They need to rotate the leadership yes, plus it's not an appointment for life

I think that has corrupted these judges more than any other thing. They should be appointed to a 10 year term, and it's NON-RENEWABLE. We have lots of federal judges in lower courts who never get a chance for appointment to the Supreme Court, and that's really unfair.

[spanone]

25. I'm with you.

[Dawson Leery]

26. I am for it.

[GiqueCee]

29. First...

... let's take out the trash, starting with Roberts.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

30. Shhh! Don't talk about this until there is a Dem prez and a Dem senate.

I'm surprised Trump hasn't already expanded the court with another four Federalist Society / Leonard Leo recommendations..

[maxsolomon]

31. I guess.

I think it's a quixotic and won't happen no matter what Dem is elected.

[Katinfl]

32. If the situation were reversed, they would do it in a minute.

[TomSlick]

33. I have also come around to the idea.

I still don't like it but I see no other option.

[LiberalLovinLug]

34. If Democrats get enough of a majority and do this, will they shoot themselves in the foot with appeasement ?

Because, based on past behavior, (Obama re-appointing Republican Comey, Biden appointing Republican Garland) I can totally see them trying to win over FOX News (which they never do) yet again by insisting that half have a Republican background. And go with the hope that they are moderate and non partisan in their thinking. (which they never are)

[Figarosmom]

35. Yes and term limits

It should have one judge per every 24,000,000 people or so. Made relative to number of people in the country.

[xuplate]

36. Absolutely.

SCROTUS is abusing the Constitution.on behalf of reactionary elites. Expanding the court is the most efficient way to end it.

[mwmisses4289]

37. I'm for going back over every decision this court has made,

and overturning many of their decisions.

[Soul_of_Wit]

38. eXpand the XCOTUS

The X is for eXtreme.

[oasis]

43. Past time to kick Alito and ass-licking Thomas

to the curb.

Let’s get it done people!!!

[HappyH]

44. Yes, expand to 13 when the next democrat is in the White House.

1 for each Federal Circuit. I hoping that will happen in 2029 and we get 4 young and very liberal judges.

[marble falls]

46. Still against. Whatever we do works for them, too, in another situation. So far SCOTUS rules against him 80% ...

... of the time. Swap out Thomas and Alito and the number would go up.

All we need to do is not allow lame duck TACO name Thomas' replacement. If he dies in the eight years of a Democratic President and Congress. It's OK, too. Just don't let that lame duck name the next justice.

[Bluetus]

51. There should be at least 50 justices, and it has nothing to do with Trump

The idea that 9 people have the knowledge and wisdom to rule on all aspects of our complex society today (science, technology, ethics, medicine trade, treaties, separation of powers, etc.) is absolutely preposterous.

A more appropriate organization might be to have several smaller panels that have particular expertise, for example
* Science, technology, medicine, telecom, environment
* Constitutional law and politics
* Business practices, tax law, and cases related to commerce
* Foreign affairs, treaties, etc.

And another panel that is responsible for administrative things like injunctions, appeals and schedules, and issues that overlap two or more of the above panels.

Each of these panels could easily have 9-12 members to make sure we have sufficient expertise in all areas.

In such a structure, the Chief shouldn't have a vote at all on cases before the court, but would have specific areas where he/she would have decision-making authority for the good and efficiency of the court. Rotate that Chief ever 2-3 years.

[Goonch]

52. ;-{) THIS

[Alice Kramden]

54. Yes

We have no other reasonable choice