The constraint you are systematically ignoring is the need to insulate the judiciary from the Executive Branch. There being no magic formula for identifying exactly who should be on SCOTUS, you need to have the POTUS nominate people to fill vacancies. I accept that, but it does involve the POTUS in the judiciary, and we could wish otherwise.Why not go the other way and reduce to 7?My proposal that the POTUS name, effectively, running mates to be “candidates" for SCOTUS like the VP is a running mate for the POTUS isn’t perfect. In fact I would expect and respect some vehement opposition. But at least the electorate would know something about what electing a particular presidential candidate would imply for the judiciary. If the Democrat named some Ninth Circus clown, that would energize his base but also his opponent’s base.
Perhaps instead of naming the particular name of the person to be elevated to the Court, each candidate should be “required” (incentivized) to name ten possibilities on a shortish list. That way none of them would be actual “candidates” in the political sense. And if any one of them was objectionable, the opposition would have good cause to attack, claiming that “If you elect Joe then Judy, of all people, will be on SCOTUS.”
Again I repeat, the POTUS must not be able to influence SCOTUS. SCOTUS justice terms have to be long - or at least longish - and independent of POTUS. Think what the Obamanation years would have been if Obama, of all people, had controlled not only the executive but the deciding vote on SCOTUS! You have to be off your gourd if you like that idea!
Here’s how the numbers work:The more members on the SCOTUS bench, the longer each one’s term is.Presidential elections occur every 4 years, nobody expects that to change. You can go to 7 justices, but that implies that either the POTUS names one every 4 years - times seven justices equals 28 years as the judicial term - or the POTUS names two every 4 years, meaning a 14 year term for each - and in the POTUS’s second term, and the first term of his successor, he would have named the majority of the members of SCOTUS. And that is simply to much churning, and too much presidential influence, on SCOTUS.
The more members nominated by each POTUS, the shorter the term.The more members on the SCOTUS bench, the less influence each POTUS’ nominations affect SCOTUS.
The more members nominated by each POTUS, the more influence each POTUS’ nominations affect SCOTUS.Keeping SCOTUS at nine justices works if POTUS names two of them each inauguration day: that maps to an 18 year term but I don’t like each POTUS naming even four of nine justices.
Raising SCOTUS to eleven justices works if POTUS names two of them each inauguration day: that maps to a 22 year term, and the influence of a two-term POTUS’ picks would only be four out of eleven - which I think about right.
I wouldn’t seriously consider going to 13 since a 26 year term implies that you are approaching the present unlimited term situation - why bother at all? And then, I think that eleven justices is just about the max from the POV of the function of the Court itself. I note that you would like even fewer justices on the bench. That’s why I come down on either 9 or 11, I prefer 11. As a practical matter of implementation, allowing the first POTUS under the new dispensation to add two justices to the bench works better than trying to reduce the number.
I think everything you say makes sense, and again I’m all for truncating these old goats lifer terms. But, to do all this requires a Constitutional Amendment (I think). You will note most constitutional amendments can be put on a bumper sticker. Isn’t your plan a little cumbersome? Couldn’t the same thing, or at least a major improvement, be had by passing a simple one sentence amendment that says “U.S.Supreme Court Judges terms are limited to 20 years”.