Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJonathan Turley's piece in LAT on "Make the Supreme Court bigger..." (To 19 total)
IMHO nine is too small for such a powerful group, as he points out, it often gets us a single decider, who reigns for years. And is very hard to unseat.
I also like his idea to keep two in rotation in the lower courts, plus limiting a sitting president to a total of two appointments per term.
(Trigger warning: some criticism of Democrats)
And yet nine is one of the worst numbers we could have come up with for a Supreme Court. The Constitution does not specify the size of the court. The first Supreme Court had six members, and, when it convened in 1790 at the Royal Exchange Building in New York, only two of those justices showed up. As of 1869, the court happened to have nine members because there were nine circuits, or federal court districts. And it has stayed that way ever since.
Our Supreme Court is the smallest of any major nation, and the result is that for periods of time we have a court of one, especially on hard cases a single swing vote decides which way a 5-to-4 decision will tilt. It used to be that Justice Sandra Day OConnor was the decider, then Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Now it may be Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Expanding the court my way would end that concentration of power. The court might split, but the deciding vote probably wouldnt be the same justice again and again.
My proposal also avoids giving any president an advantage in nominating new justices. The increase in size would happen slowly: No president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term. When the court was fully staffed at 19, natural turnover would start to regulate its makeup, with no one president likely to be able to push it in one direction or another, and yet with most presidents getting a chance to nominate newcomers to the court.
So why 19? Because that is roughly the size of our federal appellate courts, and such courts function well when sitting together, or en banc. I would add a rule that, each year, two of the high court justices would be dispatched to sit on lower courts, so they dont lose touch with judging in the litigation brawl that precedes a case that rises to the Supreme Court. That would leave an active court of 17 justices. (If Congress did not want to circulate judges in the lower courts, it would expand the high court to 17 members, still big enough to spread the power and presidential prerogatives around.)
Our Supreme Court is the smallest of any major nation, and the result is that for periods of time we have a court of one, especially on hard cases a single swing vote decides which way a 5-to-4 decision will tilt. It used to be that Justice Sandra Day OConnor was the decider, then Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Now it may be Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Expanding the court my way would end that concentration of power. The court might split, but the deciding vote probably wouldnt be the same justice again and again.
My proposal also avoids giving any president an advantage in nominating new justices. The increase in size would happen slowly: No president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term. When the court was fully staffed at 19, natural turnover would start to regulate its makeup, with no one president likely to be able to push it in one direction or another, and yet with most presidents getting a chance to nominate newcomers to the court.
So why 19? Because that is roughly the size of our federal appellate courts, and such courts function well when sitting together, or en banc. I would add a rule that, each year, two of the high court justices would be dispatched to sit on lower courts, so they dont lose touch with judging in the litigation brawl that precedes a case that rises to the Supreme Court. That would leave an active court of 17 justices. (If Congress did not want to circulate judges in the lower courts, it would expand the high court to 17 members, still big enough to spread the power and presidential prerogatives around.)
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-turley-supreme-court-packing-democrats-20190404-story.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 774 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (11)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jonathan Turley's piece in LAT on "Make the Supreme Court bigger..." (To 19 total) (Original Post)
Pluvious
Apr 2019
OP
Little Star
(17,055 posts)1. What you said Jonathan Turley!!!!!
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)2. Works for me.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)3. Six, nine, 19...
all can be packed.
struggle4progress
(118,330 posts)4. Turley's a libertarian nutcase, whose advice we should ignore
Takket
(21,614 posts)5. i think Dems should do this when in power next
I'm kind of surprised the GOP didn't do it.
Rules have meant nothing to them so i have no moral issue with stocking the SCOTUS with Dems to dilute the GOP out of relevance. Also the House needs to increase in size to around 700, which would be about 1 rep for every 500,000 people.
manor321
(3,344 posts)6. Fun fact: It was set to ten in 1863.
And reset to nine in 1869.