Should SCOTUS be increased to 13?

[Lesh]

Elections have consequences-Barry Hussein.

Republicans are never to be trusted

 

[Kilroy2]

It has never been an "even" number - and should never be!

Well I like the even number because currently they cannot agree on majority of opinions. It's the majority vote rule. So judges either render the correct verdict or the incorrect verdict. That is the message they are sending that errors can be made in rendering a decision. Well reversing previous decisions show errors.

IF justice is truly blind and fair then there should be an unanimous decision. There is to much bias in the supreme court and they show this by every verdict they render that is not unanimous.

it says that they can agree on an opinion facing the court.

Supreme Court defies critics with wave of unanimous decisions

The nine justices have charted a surprising course down the middle in 2021, handing down more unanimous opinions than any time in at least the last seven years.

abcnews.go.com

currently under the leadership of Roberts they have achieved more unanimous decisions

critics complain because the have an opinion of what the outcome should be. thus that is the problem people have opinions and it influences final decisions.

even number of justices says that if it is 6 to 6 , then Houston we have a problem. No decision
i

They are the Supreme Court, either live up to the name or quit

 

[Godboy]

The Court was expanded to the current 9 because there were nine circuits at the time.

There are currently 13

The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number to 9. It is not based on districts.

 

[WEATHER53]

The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number to 9. It is not based on districts.

Oh no
Another feeling inaccurately stated as fact?????

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Court was expanded to the current 9 because there were nine circuits at the time.

There are currently 13

The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number to 9. It is not based on districts.

Actually, there were 10 Circuit Courts and in the Judiciary Act of 1869 the number of Circuits was reduced to 9 with a Justice for each of the 9.

So ya, the 9 is based on the number of Circuit Court Districts at the time.

WW

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ok, so first, why blame the republicans for that? That’s just how the system works. If you have a gripe, then gripe at the system, and push for a change.

But, this is the system we have because the founders didn’t want a majority rule. They wanted each state to have a say in things.



No they don’t, they need to win exactly what the system say they need to. Just because they win the popular vote doesn’t mean they HAVE to win the popular vote. The system would work the same if it were the other way around.

You would be fine with allowing the democrats to completely control the country though. They would win every presidency, have a permanent majority in both houses, and a permanent majority in the scotus. This would work fine for you, but what about those people in other states who don’t want to live under the rules dictated by the majority of people in New York or LA? You’d be giving 80% of the country no voice.

I mean, if you look at the political map of the country, most of the US is red, it’s just the densely populated cities in some states that make up the majority of the democrat voter base. In your scenario, it would be those spots who could control the rest of the country.

Isn’t really what you want?

Am I blaming the Republicans for how the system is? No.

I'm telling you the Republicans won't change this system because it benefits them the most.

I've been pushing for change for a long, long, long time. Go search "Proportional Representation" again my name on this forum if you like.

Yes, they do. Obama and Biden both got over 51%. A republican hasn't got 51% of the vote since the 1980s.

You literally don't understand how the political system would change the political scene in the US with Proportional Representation.

Saying "The Democrats would win everything" is total nonsense.

In Germany they don't have two parties. They have SIX.
In Denmark they don't have two parties. They have TEN.

People vote for issues, not for whatever bullshit the Reps and Dems decide to spout at any particular time.

People have choices, they will punish parties they don't like by voting for a party on the same wing, but with different policies to punish them. They'll vote for smaller parties because they like what the smaller parties have to say.

You know the state that voted the most for Trump in 2020 was CA right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, they do. Obama and Biden both got over 51%. A republican hasn't got 51% of the vote since the 1980s.

That's awesome!
How many Republicans have received over 270 electoral votes?

 

[struth]

Justices are chosen by a president.

Presidents are elected through FPTP, which is exacerbated by Congress being chosen by FPTP which leads to a partisan two party system.

This means that Presidents are often quite partisan, Clinton was probably the least partisan in the last 50 years, and they impeached him.

This means a Supreme Court justice in order to get noticed, has to be kind of partisan too. This then pushes the whole judicial system towards partisan politics.

Also, it's all about games. Look at all the justices there.

Trump in 4 years got three justice picks.
Obama in 8 years got two justice picks.
Bush in 8 years got two justice picks.

Of these Trump and Bush's first election, neither got the popular vote.

So, only one right wing Justice was put in place by a President who became president with the popular vote, Thomas, and he's corrupt.

It doesn't represent the US. It represents THE SYSTEM and the system is broken beyond belief.

justices, judges and the judicial branch isnt run by the popular vote
, nor should it be. What’s legal is not what is always popular

 

[eagle1462010]

Republicans are never to be trusted

Democraps are never to be trusted

 

[Godboy]

Actually, there were 10 Circuit Courts and in the Judiciary Act of 1869 the number of Circuits was reduced to 9 with a Justice for each of the 9.

So ya, the 9 is based on the number of Circuit Court Districts at the time.

WW

No its not, otherwise we wouldnt have 9 right now. Districts have nothing to do with it.

 

[kyzr]

No. In fact We should put the number (9) in the constitution so it is no longer a matter for debate.

If we can get a Convention of States we can make an Amendment to limit thev USSC to 9-justices.

Not sure if congress can make such a law?

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

Crybaby sore losers ... let's hear it for Trump #45 ... what's wrong ,couldn't cheat lefty? Trump will be causing Democrat tears for years and years .... lifetime appointees.. and young ... lol. Fuck you Democrats...

 

[WorldWatcher]

No its not, otherwise we wouldnt have 9 right now. Districts have nothing to do with it.

Actually it was. There were 10 Circuit Court Districts prior to 1869, in those Days the Circuit Courts actually - you know - traveled the circuits and there were 10 Supreme Court Justices, one for each Circuit.

The Judiciary Act of 1869 reduced the number of Circuits to 9 and lowered the Supreme Court from 10 to 9. One for each Circuit.

It's just history.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

If we can get a Convention of States we can make an Amendment to limit thev USSC to 9-justices.

Not sure if congress can make such a law?

Please see post #97.

Why artificially limit it to 9, why not base the number of justices on the work load?

That post has a means of increasing the court without doing it all at once to benefit a particular party.

WW

 

[Cellblock2429]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

/---/ It's odd you didn't share this when Trump was president. Very odd indeed.

 

[Godboy]

Actually it was. There were 10 Circuit Court Districts prior to 1869, in those Days the Circuit Courts actually - you know - traveled the circuits and there were 10 Supreme Court Justices, one for each Circuit.

The Judiciary Act of 1869 reduced the number of Circuits to 9 and lowered the Supreme Court from 10 to 9. One for each Circuit.

It's just history.

WW

The number of districts has changed all throughout our nations history. Since 1869, we have never changed the number of Supreme Court justices, therefore the two things are obviously unrelated.

 

[candycorn]

If we can get a Convention of States we can make an Amendment to limit thev USSC to 9-justices.

Not sure if congress can make such a law?

We actually need a whole separate court called WATUTN that is .0001 degree below the SOCTUS whose only cases are to consider and shoot down all of the crazy stuff red states try to do. WATUTN stands for What Are They Up To Now?

 

[22lcidw]

We actually need a whole separate court called WATUTN that is .0001 degree below the SOCTUS whose only cases are to consider and shoot down all of the crazy stuff red states try to do. WATUTN stands for What Are They Up To Now?

Perhaps Progs should shore up their elected politicians, AG's and DA's because we are all finding out that they are not that good. All of this inclusion that was supposed to make us better from more to choose from and we get this. On top of it they are using pure globalist political polices that are for the Prog Socialist Party over the citizen of the nation. The Illegals are proof enough of that.

 

[JWBooth]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

Nope, try not being a fucking retard for a while.

 

[kyzr]

I don't have a problem increasing the number of Justices based on increased work load. We've had the same 9 Justice court since 1869 while the country has grown immensely. Increasing the number of Justices based on desire for political outcomes? No.
So increase the Court to 13 Justices is fine with (IMHO) the following stipulations:

• No President may select more than 1 Justice. (If a President is a single term President they get 1, if they are a 2 term President they still only get one They do not get a second choice for the second term.)
• The first additional Justice is nominated the Presidential cycle after the current Presidents term ends.
• The President is still free to make nominations for vacancies (retirement, death, impeachment) as normal.
• At a minimum then (if each following President is single term) it would take 16 years to increase the size of the court to 13. Up to 32 years if each President is a 2 term President.

I would even recommend keeping the number of Justices assigned to hear a case at 9 even though there would 13 Justices available. Balance would be maintained through round robin randomized selection of which Justices hear any one case.

WW

1. I'm actually okay giving each president one USSC pick, replacing the oldest justice, or a vacancy, filled after he leaves office unless its a vacancy, if his first choice fails (like Garland) he can keep selecting until he gets one approved.

2. All 13 justices would need to hear every case.

3. The argument for keeping 9 justices is that technology gives access to whatever they need instantly, they don't need to travel by horseback.