To Improve the Supreme Court, Let's Expand It

http://jewishworldreview.com ^ | Jonathan Turley

[manny613]

For the past four weeks, Senators and commentators have often used the most apocalyptic terms to describe the potential nomination of a rigid conservative to succeed Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court's perennial swing voter.

[manny613]

Very interesting idea.

[aynrandfreak]

Isn't that what FDR tried?

[kjam22]

Make it a 10 member court? And the US Attorney General gets to break any ties :)

[Steve_Seattle]

Not a bad proposal; I too am troubled by so many 5-4 votes and "wild swings in doctrine." It makes sense that the more justices there are, the fewer one-vote decisions there will be, and therefore fewer swings in doctrine. On the other hand, maybe we'll just end up with a bunch of 10-9 votes.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Make it a 10 member court? And the US Attorney General gets to break any ties :)

Thank God Ramsey Clarke isn't our current Atty. Gen'l.

[Publius6961]

To Improve the Supreme Court, Let's Expand It

What an asinine idea!
If something is dysfunctional, make it bigger. Yeah. That will fix it.

(Think U.N.)

[drjimmy]

Very interesting idea.

It is, indeed, interesting. Of course Turley's reasoning also flies in the face of what, IMHO, the Supreme Court is all about.

"The result is that the court often has remained unchanged as society has changed."
--So much for "original intent."

"Expansion would reduce the relative weight of individual justices and increase the likelihood of diversity in views on given subjects."
--Contrary to the liberal manifesto, there isn't always "strength in diversity."

"Expansion would reduce drafting time and likely increase the number of cases being heard."
--The fewer cases heard by the Supreme Court, the better.

"Most importantly, the expansion would guarantee a steadier turnover of members, bringing new faces and views to the court. Each president can be expected to have at least one appointment, reflecting the contemporary political values that led to their election."
--The faces of Supreme Court members have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. And, once again, "contemporary political values" is the antithesis of original intent.

"The number of Supreme Court justices, like the number of Members of Congress, should be a natural subject for occasional revision."
--Yeah, we need a Supreme Court more like Congress. NOT!

[Paine in the Neck]

The Dems' favorite solution to Scotus not doing their will.

[planekT]

...Isn't that what DFR tried?...

He was threatening to. The court finally gave in to him and it wasn't necessary, IIRC.

Now me, I wouldn't expand the court. I'd shrink it by at least 2 Justices.

I'll leave it to your imagination as to which 2 Justices' service would no longer be needed. :-)

[Cicero]

Very poor idea. When an institution is broke, you don't fix it by messing with the plumbing. You fix it by removing the bad people and replacing them with good people.

If you can't do that, then you'd might as well give up, because it's the people who make the decisions, not the number of people or the institutional arrangements.

Besides, this would further politicize an institution that already suffers from political megalomania.

[lilylangtree]

To improve SCOTUS, let's get rid of it.

[Mike Darancette]

FDR tried it, to no avail.

[ken5050]

What does he mean by having Justices return to "hearing cases?" Can you, or any atty, please explain...

Also, the obvious problem is giving ONE presidetnt he power to name all those justices...If you wanted to add 10, say, you'd probably have to do it by adding 2 more ever 4 years..

[ken5050]

FYI..regards

[Congressman Billybob]

The premise is correct. The number of Justices on the Supreme Court is not set by the Constitution. As a result, the Court has been as small as seven, and as large as eleven. However, the same firestorm which Roosevelt experienced when he proposed packing the Court, would also hit any other President who made the same proposal.

And keep in mind, Roosevelt had a "senility index" in his proposed law. It would have only added a new Justice "for every Justice who is older than 75 years" IIRC. Even with that modification, it was opposed. Roosevelt with his majorities in the House and Senate might have gotten it through, but Mr. Justice Reynolds decided to start supporting FDR programs rather than opposing them. Therefore, 5-4 votes against New Deal programs became 5-4 votes in favor, and the court-packing bill died a natural death.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Re: John Roberts, Supreme Court Nominee"