Expand The Supreme Court? Your Opinion.

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It doesn't matter how big the Supreme Court is if we keep stacking it with deliberately biased judges just so they will decide in favor of our own biased views.

We should be utterly disgusted with ANY politician that dares to suggest he/she would help appoint a Supreme Court Judge that is biased toward OUR preferences and agendas, and against those of our fellow citizens. Because that's a sure way of destroying the fairness and legitimacy of the court, and when it's the highest court in the land, that means we have destroyed the fairness and legitimacy our our whole justice system. Shame on us all for allowing our elected officials to deliberately corrupt and destroy our justice system just to get our own way.

Well said.

It just leaves the small problem that politicians, who appoint and ratify, are all humans...and it does seem to me these days in the US, hyper-partisan humans, to boot. Not easy to see the way around that...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not favor expansion-- period.

Any particular reason that you think 9 is the perfect number, and no other would do?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The problem is not the number of judges it is that they are poitical apointees.
Perhaps all judges at all levels should be banned from all political association.
And selected by their peers on their ability and ethics and neutraity. Then appointed by an impartial balanced committee headed by the most senior Judge.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The issue is that nothing we are discussing addresses the primary problem. Supreme Court Justices should be unbiased judges in the determination of case outcomes. More recently, however, one can begin to argue that this is no longer the case. Appointments are carried out by selecting someone who walks party lines in an effort to further future legislation. This should not be the case.

Then I say again, there needs to be a method of appointing SCOTUS judges that does not involve partisans, like the President, or a majority in the Senate.

 

[Quetzal]

Uh, how about the current Chief Justice, seems that he was appointed by a Republican and if my memory serves me correctly he hasn't exactly "walked party lines".

I was referring to recent appointments. A side effect of polarization is a potential compromise of a branch that was designed to carry no bias.

 

[David1967]

I think they have plenty of members to make good rulings. Expand it and it may well become as big a mess as Congress.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Seems that some of the Dem's presidential hopefuls are warming to the idea of expanding the Supreme Court.
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court

Oh Joy. More Judicial decreptitude.

 

[Shad]

Seems that some of the Dem's presidential hopefuls are warming to the idea of expanding the Supreme Court.
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court

It will just create a domino effect. Dems increase it by 2 to get their politically motivated majority. GOP does adds 3 to tip the Dem balance. /repeat More so it hammers home the point that SCOTUS has become a political tool, again.

 

[PureX]

Well said.

It just leaves the small problem that politicians, who appoint and ratify, are all humans...and it does seem to me these days in the US, hyper-partisan humans, to boot. Not easy to see the way around that...

We citizens need to take responsibility for our own stupidity and selfishness, and stop electing these politicians that vow to behave in such an absurdly partisan way. We are getting the government we elect, and we hate the government we have. So what does that tell us?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The American system guarantees politically biased judges.
If you want some thing different you must change the system.
The law should be Apolitical.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The problem is not the number of judges it is that they are poitical apointees.
Perhaps all judges at all levels should be banned from all political association.
And selected by their peers on their ability and ethics and neutraity. Then appointed by an impartial balanced committee headed by the most senior Judge.

Even that can get political in its own right.

Maybe we should just have the nation vote for judges like we do already on State and local levels.

 

[ecco]

Number of Judges - 9
Number of Senators need for confirmation - 67

When any Judges dies (or leaves) and after a new Judge is appointed, a new Chief Judge is selected by a random process - a roll of the dice.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Even that can get political in its own right.

Maybe we should just have the nation vote for judges like we do already on State and local levels.

Voting for judges at all levels, is like asking turkeys to vote cor Christmas.
A popular judge is unlikely to be a good one.

 

[sooda]

In the past it was done as an attempt to pack the court with one's chosen judges. The problem is that one could expand the court every time a new regime took over.

I don't see the problems of the court as being either too liberal or too conservative serious enough to mess with it. Perhaps they should instead fight to make it not possible to deny a judge's hearings as the Republicans did. That would go a lot further to solve the problems of a court rather than packing it back and forth with biased judges.

Good post. I agree. I don't think we should change the supreme court or the Electoral College.

 

[esmith]

Number of Judges - 9
Number of Senators need for confirmation - 67

When any Judges dies (or leaves) and after a new Judge is appointed, a new Chief Judge is selected by a random process - a roll of the dice.

Sorry you are wrong on both counts, that is unless you are trying to change the rules.
All it takes is a simple majority now, 51
The President appoints the Chief Justice.

 

[esmith]

I see a lot more bitterness because some can not accept they lost the 2016 election.
And if the party that lost the 2016 election continues going so far to the left that their heads are up their arse they will lose the 2020 election.

 

[pearl]

I don't see the problems of the court as being either too liberal or too conservative serious enough to mess with it. Perhaps they should instead fight to make it not possible to deny a judge's hearings as the Republicans did. That would go a lot further to solve the problems of a court rather than packing it back and forth with biased judges.

I agree, the problem is not with the Court but with the politics. I think through the years there has been times when the number of justices were not nine. Another suggestion was setting term limits on the justices which I also do not see as a positive. I think there remains a glimmer of hope that once on the bench they may be free of political bias.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Voting for judges at all levels, is like asking turkeys to vote cor Christmas.
A popular judge is unlikely to be a good one.

I'd rather have that than some elitist who thinks he or she can make better decisions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree, the problem is not with the Court but with the politics. I think through the years there has been times when the number of justices were not nine. Another suggestion was setting term limits on the justices which I also do not see as a positive. I think there remains a glimmer of hope that once on the bench they may be free of political bias.

I still think they can be 'influenced' through various means.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, the problem is not with the Court but with the politics. I think through the years there has been times when the number of justices were not nine. Another suggestion was setting term limits on the justices which I also do not see as a positive. I think there remains a glimmer of hope that once on the bench they may be free of political bias.

It has happened before. Personally I do not think that Trump's choices will stay bought. If he has to rely on the SC I think that he may be in for a rude awakening.