It's not representative enough for the population size of the US. Why cap the number?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.Meh.... we can't just keep building a bigger and bigger House chamber.
How easy would it be for more parties to gain a foothold in a more representative House?
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.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 was thinking the same thing about the SCOTUS. You must be in favor of expanding that, too.
Who are you guys? It’s your allies who would have a problem with this.So let me get this straight; you guys don't want a national divorce, but you also don't want to talk about how we got here and ways to fix the problems, unless those fixes lead to permanent D majorities?
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.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.
Oh I think we should add 9.Bullshit. Whatever it takes to tell yourself adding four justices is cool
He'd change his tune if Trump wins.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.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.
He'd change his tune if Trump wins.
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.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.
I’d be in favor of my plan for adding 9 more if Trump won.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’d be in favor of my plan for adding 9 more if Trump won.
My penis isn’t involved in this decision.
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.I find that hard to believe, but okay
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.
You say that like it's a bad thing.Too many people makes the bureaucracy too unwieldy. It's hard enough to get bills passed as it is.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
You should actually read the source material before you comment then.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.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?
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.
You should actually read the source material before you comment then.
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.Let’s just keep politicizing SCOTUS