Posted on 04/06/2017 7:53:11 AM PDT by Dave346
If there are complaints about the Supremes having too much power now, reducing to six is mathematically an increase in the power of the individual justices. From 0,1111/justices to 0.16666/justice, this represents almost a 50% increase in individual power. Is that what you really want?
Adding to the conservative majority is clearly a benefit of doing this now and, as you say, there is nothing sacred about the number nine. One additional benefit? is that changes to the makeup of the court would be slower. Your fear of the ease of a liberal majority forming is offset by the fact that changing the outlook of the court would be slower.
Congress has expanded from 21 Senators (I don’t think R.I. and N. Carolina had ratified the Constitution at the sitting of the first Congress.) to 100. The House has expanded even more, from 59 Representatives to 435. Thus, the Senate has expanded by nearly 400% and the House by more than 515%. In that time the work load of the Court has dramatically increased and cases of greater and greater complexity are before it.
>>...this represents almost a 50% increase in individual power. Is that what you really want?<<
I could live with that, yes, because it would take four of them out of six to reverse standing law.
Take your expansion notion even further and assume 21 justices. Then a switch of just one justice out of 21 could reverse the Court’s course. With 21 justices, one would be retiring every year or so. With six, we could go five years on average, i.e., more stability.
It doesn’t really matter anyway. FDR was pilloried for trying to pack the court. We’ll be at nine for the foreseeable future, in my opinion.
All well and good except there is no “course” the Court if following, each case stands alone and what has gone before is relevant only as precedent.
A case ruled 11-10 or 10/11 is not a consensus. And 6-4 is one vote away from a deadlock.
All well and good except there is no “course” the Court if following, each case stands alone and what has gone before is relevant only as precedent.
A case ruled 11-10 or 10/11 is not a consensus. And 6-4 is one vote away from a deadlock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.