Can just 9 Justices on the SCOTUS adequately provide judicial review and be judicially independent?

[ck4829]

I don't think 9 Justices can interpret the law of a country this size; with this much political difference between ideology, demographics, geography, culture, etc.

We need more Justices!

[Klaralven]

1. State Supreme Courts vary between 5, 7 and 9, with 344 justices total

https://ballotpedia.org/State_supreme_courts

[Cirque du So-What]

9. Nice to know

No individual state has as much diversity as the entire US, however.

[GusFring]

2. No judge should have a lifetime appointment.

[Buckeyeblue]

3. I've always thought 9 seemed like a low number

Considering they are the final say. I also don't like lifetime appointments. I don't think people in there 80's-90's should be on the court. I think 15 years might be a good number--it would mean the president who appointed them would not be around to appoint their successor.

[Tom Traubert]

4. It's worked with 9 since 1869

It was 6 or fewer before that time. 9 justices works fine. The problem isn’t the size of the court. I think terms need to be limited to 15 years (for all courts) to minimize the incentive to appoint young justices that can serve for 40 years, and terms staggered so every president is guaranteed the same number of appointments each term. Stacking the court didn’t work when Roosevelt tried. It’s not a great idea now. How do you stop every President with control of the Senate and House from stacking the Court? The Republicans will be in control again at some point. And more than 9 justices will be unwieldy.

[Proud liberal 80]

7. This response is why Democrats can never get anything done when

In the majority....and also the reason why we won’t be able to expand the court....you don’t understand what and who we are dealing with when it comes to the Republicans

[Trumpocalypse]

11. 1869???

The pony express worked in 1869. Should we go back to that? It is staggering clueless to say that. It totally ignores all the changes in this country since 1869.

[mwooldri]

5. 1. Yes, 2. Probably not anymore.

Nine judges has been doing it well enough so far, so the number of judges is OK. We've had quality jurists in the past and there are quality jurists there now.

The problem IMO is the independence of the Supreme Court. Jurists are selected by the President not on the basis of being competent but because of their political and legal beliefs. This has been particularly blatant in the Trump presidency, but also in the W Bush era and yes, even during Obama's era (though I could argue he was trying to right W's wrongs). The whole idea of a jury is that you have X people of sound mind and not locked into a particular ideology that can judge cases impartially. If a case involving abortion were to come to the US Supreme Court right now, I cannot say that all jurists would be impartial.

Personally I would advocate for a 13 member Supreme Court (12 for the number of regional judicial circuits plus one chief to break ties), for its jurists to be recommended by an independent committee - the President then gives their thumbs up/down to the committee's recommendation and the Senate appoints the President's "selection". I would also advocate that a 13 member Supreme Court also decides some cases on a panel of X judges - i.e. not the full court. This can allow for some specialization and certain jurists would be on a panel to decide XYZ type of case. Only cases of an utmost importance would appear before the full court.

Similar reforms for lower court appointments should also be done - basically the removal of politicians having undue influence over the appointment of judges. The judiciary is meant to be apolitical. It's not, and IMO that's the problem that needs fixing.

[Klaralven]

13. Judges should be recommended by the House Judiciary committee, Ratified by 2/3 of House vote.

Take the President out of the process.

[mwooldri]

16. I prefer an independent committee.

The reasoning is an attempt to take politics out of it and focus on whether the potential jurist is qualified and impartial. It would be okay to have politicians on both sides on that committee but the Republican Senate has rammed through some selections who their legal peers have said are not qualified for the position they're being appointed to.

Yes, take the president out of the picture. In the UK the Queen is technically appointing the judges but she doesn't do anything other than rubber stamp the decisions the selection committee makes. So making the president become a "rubber stamp" like a constitutional monarchy is OK in this case as it means there would be no constitutional change required. Anything other than "president nominate, Senate confirm" would require more work.

[mwooldri]

6. Note to add... EU Court of Justice (EU Supreme equivalent) has 27 judges.

One for each country. Cases are decided by a panel, never by the whole court.

UK has 12, again cases decided by a panel of judges never by the full court (panels are always an odd number). UK also allows for substitute supreme court judges.

[Proud liberal 80]

8. So you are telling me

We aren’t “The Greatest” Democracy in the world as we like to claim

[Klaralven]

12. Japan has 15 with a retirement age of 70

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Japan

[Cirque du So-What]

10. A larger number of SC justices

makes it less likely that one president can pack the court with ideologues, barring mass retirement or disaster.

[mcar]

14. I read that the # of SCOTUS justices used to conform to the # of appellate courts

We have 13 appellate courts. Seems like we need to correct that discrepancy.

Also, Justice Roberts has, for years, been advocating for more lower court judges.

We need more justices and more judges!

[MineralMan]

15. Once again, the fact that such an increase would have to pass

both houses of Congress and be signed into law by the President gets forgotten. Before we can even consider such a thing, we need to elect a Democratic President, maintain control of the House, and achieve a 60-vote majority in the Senate.

When we manage to do that, your suggestion will be worth considering. Meanwhile, there is an election on November 3. I suggest we all work on that right now, rather than proposing things that cannot happen unless we win.

[mwooldri]

18. Nuke the filibuster and only a simple majority is needed.

But yeah the elections need to be won first.

[egduj]

17. Depends on the justices.