In 1869 it was decided to have 9 Supreme Court justices because there were 9 Circuit Courts.
Now there are 13 Circuit Courts. So what exactly are we waiting for?
@RiaResists @Strandjunker
If enough Americans choose to #VoteBlue this fall than the new Congress with Biden's blessing will #ExpandTheCourt
@GreenFire @RiaResists @Strandjunker
Like most "supreme" courts in the world, the #SCOTUS should have about 15 justices from which a panel of 9 are chosen for each case.
That allows extensive grounds from recusal and make it harder to tailor the case to the judge.
@TCatInReality It doesn't change recusal at all. Justices remain equally able to recuse themselves.
But I don't think you're considering the downsides of a plan like that, particularly that one huge function of the justice system is certainty, predictability.
It's a feature of the system that cases can be tailored to the judges, addressing the particular areas of concern to each judge, and getting a sense of how the case may play out in front of a known set of judges to avoid surprises.
It also means a more coherent judicial philosophy, especially when different sets of Judges might come to contradictory rulings.
What happens when the Supreme Court in a single term contradicts itself? How are lower courts supposed to abide by contradictory commands?
There are real benefits to having a single set of justices on the Supreme Court. The lottery idea is more trouble than it's worth, especially considering the checks on the Supreme Court's power in the US system.
@TCatInReality there's no reason to need nine justices on a case. We have a long history of having opinions handed down with fewer, and no particular reason to need that many anyway.
Three justices or even a single justice is perfectly able to issue a ruling if need be. There's no reason that's not possible.
And the lottery system would do nothing to change whether or not the personality of judges is or is not a factor. It just means a roll of the dice to see which personalities are involved, if personalities are involved.
But again, you talk about wild swings, and I'm pointing out that the lottery could mean wild swings within a single sitting of the Court. It only would make that problem worse.
@volkris @GreenFire @RiaResists @Strandjunker
That seems like a non-argument. Once the personality of the judges is not a factor, then precedent and law *should* drive greater consistency than we see today where Courts swing wildly as the composition changes.
As for recusal, of course they can recuse now. But one excuse is the need for a full bench for decisions. In a larger court pool, that goes away and ethics rule could mandate more recusals.