Current Events > Should the Supreme Court have an even number of justices?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If the case was decided by a 5-4 majority, that really does not seem to be too confident of a decision. The Constitution, although flexible, should still be relatively objective enough to have a pretty reliable interpretation of it. If it is that close in justices believing it should or should not be constitutional, then I really don't think that should be enough to make such a broad decision.

https://yiqinfu.github.io/posts/supreme-court-kennedy-retirement-ot2017/

When you look at this, while 20% may not sound like a lot, that means 1/5 of our current cases have it to where just one justice has the power to determine the large future of our country. The very nature of a 5-4 vote is too ideological, something that the Supreme Court should not have any of.

A very important thing all of us who love math know is that the math neve lies...but it can be heavily altered. You can pick and choose any statistic to make your case, and the same goes for the Constitution it seems. The fact is, any one of these justices can always make their case why something is constitutional or not constitutional through picking out parts of it, and being able to make a whole case around it. I mean, we do it every day too, we still can't decide what the first amendment actually means for us. I'm sure 10 years down the line, we will have a different interpretation of what free speech is.

If we expanded the Supreme Court a little more, giving each justice a little less power, and started imposing limits on them at specific periods, we can keep the court having to at least have a 2 vote over split majority, and we can make sure the justices we have aren't a product of society 20-30 years ago. It's crazy to think that Gorsuch might be a justice in the 2040's, and perhaps even well into the 2050's. I understand, the Supreme Court should not be as progressive as society, there should be a conservative lean to it because too often, society gets radical ideas that need to be filtered out, but the legislative and executive branch can't deny these ideas fully because they have to rely on these voters to keep them in. The Supreme Court is able to deny these wacky ideas, and allow things like Gay Marriage (although I should state that was a 5-4 decision as well, so I might be contradicting what I said earlier) to get through. We don't need every single social cause to become the new law of the land, but at the same time, there is no reason for our Courts to be a relic of ancient times.

The fact is, the lesser and more odd numbered the justices, the more power each one has, for better or worse. An even number will make it where no one justice can be the one to hold the majority of the power in a system where 5-4 votes are often the source of ideological splits, while more justices makes it to where each individual has less power. I suppose there is a fear that one charismatic justice can more easily sway a larger group that goes with the hivemind then goes for their own decisions in what is and what is not constitutional. We see it a lot, a lot of persons will have their own beliefs, but they will gladly shut up and agree with something completely different when the "leader" of the group says otherwise.
---

What do you do in the event of a tie?
---

Nomadic View posted...

What do you do in the event of a tie?

I suppose that means the lower court's decision is upheld for the time being.
---

You could also keep the number of justices but require 6-3 to make a decision.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

You could also keep the number of justices but require 6-3 to make a decision.

Supreme Court gets unhappy when you suggest supermajorities.
---

PiOverlord posted...

The Constitution, although flexible, should still be relatively objective enough to have a pretty reliable interpretation of it

Just because something ought to doesn't mean it is.

This is one of those things where there really is no perfect implementation. Make it harder to come to a supreme court decision and you push the favor towards the status quo. As culture and technology changes, that leaves less ability for that society to adapt.

Make it easier to come to a decision and you just make it easier to change what might've been good policy to be held hostage to two party politics.
---