Discussion (5)
Grab this poll for your site
Votes cast anywhere this poll is embedded count toward the same live total.
From Groundbeat
Help us build thisWe're building the Groundbeat community one person at a time, and we need your help — if you know someone who belongs here, please send them groundbeat.com.
More in News & Politics
- Was a federal appeals court right to rule that President Trump exceeded his authority by federalizing California's National Guard? · 3 votes
- Should President Trump move White House reporters out of the press briefing room? · 2 votes
- Should former presidents like Barack Obama actively campaign in the midterm elections? · 3 votes
- Is Israel right to demolish Palestinian homes in the occupied West Bank after a deadly shooting there? · 3 votes
I am in favor of 15 justices. 11 and 13 are awkward numbers (both primes). The SCOTUS should run more like the Districts, i.e., 15 justices should be used in a rotation of 5-justice panels to hear cases (at random) before the court). It would increase somewhat the number of cases SCOTUS could handle each year, at a relatively low cost, and it would create some additional flexibility on the court itself. The whole court could occasionally choose to hear a case "en banc" and appeals for a rehearing after judgment would always be the entire court.
Term-limits and regular, involuntary rotation (i.e. each POTUS gets to appoint a set number of judges, each time a new one is appointed the seniormost gets knocked off whether it wants to retire or not) is what the SCOTUS needs, not this.
I am generally opposed to term limits for ANY office other than the President because as long as there are multiple seats available, getting a second (or even third) term seems reasonable to me. The President is unique because they represent the entire country. I strongly favor "terms" for justices and judges, typically I think 15-20 years would be appropriate. If there were 15 SCOTUS judges, I would have each serve a 20 year term, with three up for replacement or renomination during each Presidential term (4 years). The President would do the base nominations, but if someone left early, the President would NOT be allowed to select the replacement. Instead, a group of 3 Senators, 3 Representatives and 3 sitting justices would choose the replacement (to serve out the term).
Would set a dangerous precedent. If one party expands the court, the other would likely follow. We need more stability, not less.
If "keep nine" is really about protecting the court from politics, why did nine survive decades of court-packing threats but suddenly feel fragile now? curious what changed for you.