It's not representative enough for the population size of the US. Why cap the number?
435
- Thread starter William Bonney
- Start date
I was thinking the same thing about the SCOTUS. You must be in favor of expanding that, too.
Mangino lost in KC. Asks a dude, “Know how I can get to 435?”.
Dude: “Try a salad occasionally.”
Dude: “Try a salad occasionally.”
We should return to the original plan for representative apportionment. The hard cap is a legislative fix to a problem that didn't exist. It's a good thread, worthy of a read and contemplation.
I agree that California should have 79-80x the reps in the House as Wyoming, compared to the current 53x. Much more representative of the people. I'm sure we are all in favor of having our leaders in the U.S. government being much more representative of the people than they are today. That is true-blood American.
Not easy at all. You probably need to change the voting system completely to get them in play. Ranked Choice could do it.
I actually agree with this. The number of citizens represented by Representatives at the founding of our nation and the number represented now are way out of whack.
But our “ originalist Supreme Court” could never allow it...come on billyboy...so it is written, so it shall be....be consistent.
Why would the number of judges have to represent the country’s population numbers?
Originally each Justice oversaw one circuit court. The number of circuit courts has grown and likely should be expanded again, to meet the needs of a growing population. We currently have 13 circuits, so it follows that we should have 13 on the Supreme Court at minimum.
Last edited:
Bullshit. Whatever it takes to tell yourself adding four justices is cool
One of the circuits (can't remember which) is way too big and should be split in two. You'd then have 14 circuits, one for each associate justice, with the Chief Justice not aligned with a circuit. 15 total seems about right, although I wish it would be more, especially considering the caseload the SCOTUS has to handle now compared to in the past.
Although I think you’re an idiot, you do make a fair point here. @naturalmwa, would you be okay with Trump adding 4-9 more justices if he won and the GOP held the Senate?
I think 18 total would be great. Take politics out by letting each party hold nominating rights to 9 seats. Only 9 justices hear any individual case. After each case, some number rotate on and off the court so the composition changes slightly.
While we are making big changes, we might as well change from a lifetime appointment to one of say 20 years.
Why would it be hard to believe that I’d rather go to a 9-9 evenly split court over a 6-3 conservative leaning court? That’s only logical.
Oh, misunderstood. I assumed if the scenario played out, Trump would have nominated all conservatives. If the Dems add seats, they’ll nominate liberals.
Anyway, your answer makes sense now
Yes, I like a government that functions and serves to help people succeed. Despotism isn't healthy.
First off, the Dem House would not approve of SCOTUS expansion with Trump in office.
In a scenario with the GOP controlling POTUS, Senate and House, an argument could be made for SCOTUS expansion, but not as strong as the Dems would have if they control all 3 in January. The reason is because of the current makeup of the SCOTUS. In a world where the GOP controls POTUS/Senate/House, a SCOTUS with a 6-3 conservative majority would be in line with the will of the people.
In a much more likely scenario in the near future with the Dems controlling POTUS/Senate/House with a recent blue wave flipping 2 of those, a SCOTUS with a 6-3 conservative does not represent a recent strong mandate from the voters, and really would not represent a country that had had one GOP majority Presidential election in the previous 8. Adding Justices would not only accomplish easing of the workload, it would make the SCOTUS look more like the short and medium-term American electorate.
Don't particularly want to, but the GOP has left the Dems no choice due to their shenanigans with federal judge appointments (or lack thereof) dating back to 2014.
