Nine is not a magic number

[SoCalDem]

Why are there nine justices on the US Supreme Court?

One possible reason (amongst many presumably) are that any vote taken by the justices can never result in a tie - a decision will always be made one way or the other. In 1869, Congress passed a law that fixed the number of Supreme Court justices at 9. The US Constitution creates "one supreme court" but does not specify how many justices there should be. That is up to Congress to decide. The number of justices is an usually an odd number so that there would be no tie votes.

snip

The original U.S. Supreme Court had only six Justices; that number has changed several times over the years.

Judiciary Act of 1789: Court size 6
Judiciary Act of 1801: Court size, 5
Repeal Act of 1802: Court size, 6
Seventh Circuit Act of 1807: Court size, 7
Judiciary Act of 1837: Court size, 9
Tenth Circuit Act of 1863: Court size, 10
Judicial Circuit Act of 1866: Court size, 7
Habeas Corpus Act of 1867: Court size, 8
Judiciary Act of 1869: Court size, 9


Most likely, the current court has an odd number of Justices to prevent an evenly split decision. The number may have expanded to nine because the caseload has increased over the years, and not all Justices elect to review petitions for writ of certiorari (requests for a case to be reviewed by the court). The number was temporarily reduced from ten to seven during Andrew Johnson's term of office, because Congress didn't want him to have an opportunity to appoint new justices. The size of the Court was increased to nine rather than ten (most likely to avoid tie votes) when Ulysses S. Grant was elected. Congress always had reasons for changing the size of the Court -- whether to allow a sitting President more or less influence, or to adjust the Court's workload, but their purpose isn't always easy to determine.

The last time this was seriously proposed was during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. However, Roosevelt's plan (which would have ultimately allowed for up to 15 justices) was so obviously an attempt to pack the court with those whose political ideology agreed with his own that it was a political disaster for him. As it was, 8 of the 9 justices on the Court (including the Chief Justice) were Roosevelt appointees by 1941.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_there_nine_justices_on_the_US_Supreme_Court



..............................................................................................................

The US population in 1869 was about 38.9 million.

9 might have been enough then, but I think as the country grew, the number of sitting justices should have increased as well.(always maintaining the "odd" number.

Considering that they serve for life and they ARE a political body, NO one president/party should ever be in a position to appoint a "majority" of the SCOTUS. There should always be a flux. I would like to see 21 be the official count. Each one could be assigned a number and 15 could rule. They should be chosen randomly on any case, so that no one faction could rule the roost.

[originalpckelly]

1. Your suggestion is actually very good and mirrors the lower courts.

In cases three judges will sit to hear arguments, but they are drawn from a much larger pool.

It is an excellent idea.

We have to start realizing that we are the ones in control here, not precedent set long ago. It might not be something we want to change for political reasons, it would look bad to do it now, but in the long term there should be some type of reform for this system.

[SoCalDem]

2. and to GET to 21, each president, as they are leaving office

could submit 7 names, of which 3 would be eventually chosen, until they get to 21.

That way, their appointments would not be to further any agenda their administration had , and the incoming congress would approve the 3 who would take the bench.

Of course a death or retirement would be a different procedure.

No one should EVER bring a case to SCOTUS, "knowing" that a 5-4 is the likely/best outcome...and "knowing" they are screwed before they utter a word. ..

Also, spouses' employment/advocacy of sitting justices should be considered and recusals should be the NORM..not the abstract/never.

[onenote]

5. Your selection process would require a constitutional amendment

SCOTUS justices have to be confirmed by the Senate and there is no way under the current constitutional provision to force the Senate to confirm three, or even one, of the nominees that a president puts forth.

[onenote]

3. I'm concerned about an absence of finality

When a three-judge panel on the court of appeals decides something, the losing litigant can either seek to appeal the decision to the supreme court or it can first seek a ruling "en banc" - a decision by the entire appellate court, not just the three that heard the case originally.

In any event, if the SCOTUS operated with panels made up of fewer than the total number of justices, you would not have the same level of finality as you have today with the SCOTUS. In order to achieve that finality, there would need to be a process for seeking en banc review by the entire body of justices. That would substantially delay what already can be a very drawn out process. Plus, there would be a very strong likelihood that many 5/4 or 6/3 decisions would be reviewed en banc.

Also, how would a decision be made whether to hear a case --by the entire body of justices or just a subset?

[SoCalDem]

4. All would review, and vote yay or nay individually

If 11 say yay..they consider it.

lots drawn to assign and 15 hear the case.. 6 "extras" should cover the recusal issue