fair enough, but in that case I will stand by and reiterate my response that "good thing the Supreme Court is not a popularity contest." I do not believe that response to be dismissive--it is in fact what I genuinely believe.
No, that was definitely not, but I think it's fair to judge that your replies to my replies were... I don't mean for any of this to be personal. It's not that big of a deal.
again, fair enough. And I didn't interpret anything to be personal--you are generally a fair and thoughtful poster, and I enjoy reading what you have to say
This is from off the top of my head, but the prior expansions were due to the Supreme Court growing in size as the country was growing, so new Justices from different regions were added. It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln that multiple Justices from the same state were added - due to him being against the Dredd Scott decision.
actually, to return to this post and make a less flippant and/or dismissive comment: opinion polls can tell us something about a political reality, but the public may overwhelming believe in something and be wholly and completely wrong in holding that position. Think of widespread racism in the Jim Crow era: perhaps 53% of the American public supported Jim Crow laws, and that may tell us something about the political reality at the time, but that public opinion at the time was wrong, morally, as it would be now if it were still the case. Appeals to public opinion made to support a moral argument run the risk of committing an ad populum fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum . This is why I responded with the "good thing the Supreme Court isn't a popularity contest." For the most part I believe these claims about the integrity and corruption of the Supreme Court are incorrect. In saying that I don't mean to suggest that USSC is above criticism, or that individual members (e.g., Thomas and Alito) are paragons of individual virtue. But I also believe that some of the personal failings of individual justices does not necessarily entail the conclusion that their legal reasoning and jurisprudence is corrupt. Folks are obviously free to criticize the decisions of Thomas and Alito on the merits-- but those critiques should be on the merits and not exclusively ad hominem.
Isn’t there something in their oaths about staying away from politics? Better turn this in to the august body that them accountable.
OK... has the country grown since 1869? Have there been states added? Did the population grow? Are there more district courts since then?
Oh, I am sure we can soon expect an editorial in a right win publication by one of the justices... complaining about how folks are questioning and even criticizing the supreme court for being *gasp* partisan.
They didn't like a decision of the 7 person court (ruling paper money unconstitutional) so they expanded to 9 and then immediately overturned that decision with their new majority. Most of the times the number of justices changed was partisanship. The other reason was that they used to also travel as circuit court judges and new circuits required expanding the court. As they no longer travel to serve as circuit court judges, that reason no longer exists. All that remains is partisan sour grapes. Why Do 9 Justices Serve on the Supreme Court? | HISTORY
I'm answering at face value. From my understanding without looking it up, it used to be District Courts plus the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices used to work regional district courts, called riding the circuit, like riding their horse back to their home towns to work. After SCOTUS stopped expanding, many more district courts have been added, as well as Courts of Appeals, created by Congress. I agree with the issue that SCOTUS needs to take more cases. How that is done is a good question to debate.
There is plenty of evidence that perception is reality but isn't factual (e.g., 40% believe we are in a recession). Nevertheless, that's our system. We don't elect leaders or make policies based on facts, but perceptions. It has always been that way. If you want to solve that, we have to do something like removing humans from the equation of decision-making, for example, relying on 'factual' AI to make these decisions.
well, again, my posts were aimed more at the moral or political theory arguments being offered up to "reform the USSC." The burden of proof is on those who believe reform is needed. I do not think they've even begun to make that case.
Interesting (the bold part). Since all justices deal with each case (these days at least), it seems that for the SCOTUS to take on more cases, it needs to both expand and divide. Perhaps it could form specialized committees or panels to focus on particular areas of law, helping to streamline the review process and improve the efficiency of handling complex legal issues.
The case (or some cases) has been made, but there isn't enough political support. I am saying, though, that might be starting to happen given how quickly this Court has turned sour among the general public.
