Embracing Supreme Court Expansion Carries No Political Cost, Study Says

[Dennis Donovan]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/expand-supreme-court-no-political-cost-democrats-take-back-the-court_n_5e4a1652c5b64d860fccca4b

“There is no reason for leaders to shy away from saying what needs to be said,” the leader of a group promoting expansion of the high court said.

By Daniel Marans

Expanding the Supreme Court, an increasingly popular reform among some progressive activists, is not politically costly for Democrats, according to an academic survey commissioned by a group that supports the idea.

The study documented reactions to the idea among 2,400 Democrats, Republicans and independents from the political swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota. It was conducted by political scientist Aaron Belkin from San Francisco State University and James Druckman of Northwestern University’s Institute for Policy Research. Druckman, a public opinion expert, designed the study, while the funding came from Take Back the Court, a progressive judicial reform group that Belkin runs.

The survey asked participants to react to two different Democrat-Republican matchups. The first was a “status quo” group pitting a standard Democratic candidate who wants to expand health care access, repeal President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, regulate guns and fight climate change against a Republican candidate who holds inverse positions but also wants to reshape the judiciary.

In a second matchup, survey participants evaluated a “court expansion” matchup between a hypothetical Republican candidate and a hypothetical Democratic candidate. In that scenario, the Democrat would propose expanding the court to make it “more representative of America, bring greater balance to the court, and prevent the domination of the Supreme Court by a single political party,” according to the study. The Republican candidate would call the idea “a threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all Americans by radical liberals trying to change the rules so a few cities in New York and California can impose their will on the rest of us.”

</snip>

Let's add at least 2 after 1/21!

[ck4829]

1. We need this, not just for balance, but for the fact that our nation is growing

I don't think 9 justices can do our country, well, justice.

Other countries have the equivalent of our Supreme Court and they have more than 9 justices on them:
Malaysia has 12.
Cyprus has 13.
Israel has 15.
Japan has 15.
Chile has 21.

Having us languish with 9 does our country no favors.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. I agree w/ you CK, 9 people deciding on critical issues for this country seems rather...

limited in representing the wants and desires of this vast country w/ all of its divergent tastes and needs of a diversified population from all walks of life, from all corners of the world. And one thing I'd like to recommend, is that supreme court justices be voted on by the population and not nominated by the president or voted on by the senate. The reason being that in our current environment, abuses are evident in both the Senate and Exec. branches (e.g., McConnell sitting on the nominee Garland), etc. They've lost the right to represent the American people since they seem to be acting only in their self interest, and no one else's.

[jimfields33]

3. Just don't say anything until we have the presidency

I could see trump adding 4 this summer if he finds out there’s no problem with it.

[Polybius]

5. It has to pass the House and Senate first

Pelosi would never bring it up.

[KPN]

4. Plus one for good measure -- three!