There are any number of recommendations floating to expand the US Supreme Court. Jacob Hale Russel goes beyond the focus of most mere size to suggest structural and procedural changes, all within...
There are any number of recommendations floating to expand the US Supreme Court. Jacob Hale Russel goes beyond the focus of most mere size to suggest structural and procedural changes, all within Congress's legislative remit. The actual Constitutional specification of the court requires little other than that it exist.
The present court is too small. Expand it.
The current court hears too few cases. Multi-track cases. An expanded court, hearing cases in parallel, with smaller banks of justices, could hear far more than the 80 of 8,000 appealled or referred cases annually.
The current court's balance swings on a single President's appointments, affecting all cases heard, potentially for years, until the next appointment. By expanding the court, dividing the judges into panels, and randomly assigning and reconstituting those panels with time, the sense of a "sure thing" going to court, or even of a house advantage, is greatly reduced. The court may have an overall bias toward liberal or conservative views (or some other categorisation), but any given case might find itself in front of a minority panel.
The number of critical and closely divided cases is small, as noted below. The significance of those cases, both in terms of their impact on affected persons and businesses, and on increasingly partisan politics within the US, is far larger than the apparently minor occurences of same.
One of the criticisms of the present court is that it "comforts the comfortable, and afflicts the afflicted." I'd like to take Russell's argument one step further: Have the Supreme Court ride circuit again. Put the justices directly in contact with the people, out in the country, and with the visceral reality of trial court procedure.
In 1898, the viability of a set of judges spreading out through a continent-sized country lacking in high-speed transportation was limited. Even with rail, a transcontinental trip took a week or more, communications remained limited, and prospects were daunting. We no longer live in that world.
There are any number of recommendations floating to expand the US Supreme Court. Jacob Hale Russel goes beyond the focus of most mere size to suggest structural and procedural changes, all within Congress's legislative remit. The actual Constitutional specification of the court requires little other than that it exist.
The present court is too small. Expand it.
The current court hears too few cases. Multi-track cases. An expanded court, hearing cases in parallel, with smaller banks of justices, could hear far more than the 80 of 8,000 appealled or referred cases annually.
The current court's balance swings on a single President's appointments, affecting all cases heard, potentially for years, until the next appointment. By expanding the court, dividing the judges into panels, and randomly assigning and reconstituting those panels with time, the sense of a "sure thing" going to court, or even of a house advantage, is greatly reduced. The court may have an overall bias toward liberal or conservative views (or some other categorisation), but any given case might find itself in front of a minority panel.
The number of critical and closely divided cases is small, as noted below. The significance of those cases, both in terms of their impact on affected persons and businesses, and on increasingly partisan politics within the US, is far larger than the apparently minor occurences of same.
One of the criticisms of the present court is that it "comforts the comfortable, and afflicts the afflicted." I'd like to take Russell's argument one step further: Have the Supreme Court ride circuit again. Put the justices directly in contact with the people, out in the country, and with the visceral reality of trial court procedure.
In 1898, the viability of a set of judges spreading out through a continent-sized country lacking in high-speed transportation was limited. Even with rail, a transcontinental trip took a week or more, communications remained limited, and prospects were daunting. We no longer live in that world.