28 USC 1

[Mike Niendorff]

28 U.S. Code § 1 - Number of justices; quorum

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.

-----

Just a reminder that having only 9 Justices on the Court is *NOT* a Constitutional requirement. That number is actually set by federal law -- specifically, the statute cited above.

This law can be changed.

As of today, this option should absolutely 100% be on the table.



MDN

[roamer65]

1. Correct...and it has been changed in the past.

The present configuration was approved in 1869.

https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court

It is completely at the discretion of Congress.

If there is a reversal of Roe v Wade, I think an increase in the number of justices will become a very popular idea.

[SunSeeker]

2. 11 is a good number. And would cancel out Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

[roamer65]

3. I'd go 13, under a Dem Congress and President.

It actually would be a good thing to do, bringing a wider range of views into cases.

[SunSeeker]

5. Works for me! But the Supreme Court's courtroom is small.

They'd have to do some remodeling. The 9 justices barely fit up there right now. They need to expand the courtroom anyway. It is ridiculously small for those who want to view oral argument. Even attirneys there for oral argument are forced to sit claustrophobically close in small armless chairs pushed together with absolutely no room between them. It's crazy.

[roamer65]

7. It can be relocated during renovation.

President Truman spend most of his presidency in Blair House.

[jmowreader]

6. 19 would be a better number

With nineteen justices, you could divide the court into two nine-member panels, supervised by a Chief Justice who only sits in judgment when there's a vacancy on the court. Because the US is so large, one panel would sit in Washington and the other somewhere on the West Coast - I'm thinking either San Francisco or Portland. This would solve the second-biggest problem the Supreme Court has - there aren't enough hours in a Court term to hear all the cases that need to be heard. (Putting Donald Trump's insane jurists on different panels would solve the biggest problem it has.)

[roamer65]

8. That is a really good idea.

The original justices had to perform duties outside of DC, in the judicial districts. Present day ones can as well.

[SunSeeker]

9. Interesting. But how do you assure consistency between panels?

Maybe one panel should only hear criminal cases and the other only hear civil cases.

[roamer65]

12. Alternate justices between the panels.

It will make it harder for litigants to target arguments to specific justices.

[jmowreader]

15. You could do that, but both panels would need to be in DC

That's completely doable. The court hears arguments for two weeks, then deliberates for two weeks before hearing more arguments. Panel 1 could hear arguments while Panel 2 is deliberating, and vice versa.

[dalton99a]

4. Yep. The number of justices is determined by Congress.

[Grasswire2]

10. and Puerto Rico can be made a state by Congress, too, adding two more senators

There are ways here.

[roamer65]

11. Also amalgamate Guam and Northern Marianas Islands into one state.

52 stars on the new flag.

[beveeheart]

13. What about the District of Columbia?

[roamer65]

14. You mean the State of Columbia?

53 stars.

[beveeheart]

16. I hadn't ever thought about what it would be named. Columbia

sounds good.

[Igel]

21. It would be protested.

And those who suggested it deemed racist.

"Columbia" is derived from &quot Christopher) Columbus".

[beveeheart]

25. OK, you just changed my mind about that name.

[Grasswire2]

17. maybe California would volunteer to split.

But that kinds spoils the even number.

[BadgerMom]

18. Nope!

[iluvtennis]

19. Thanks for this post - it's my I learn something new today -- like it!

[Stonepounder]

20. Good God! Don't say this too loudly!

If the Rethugs get wind of this, they will expand the court and add two more of their Justices before the midterms!

[Buckeyeblue]

22. The number could be lowered as well...

How would you decide who goes? Last one on is the first one off? I think 9 is a small number, especially for a group made up of lifetime appointees. What if we went with 50 justices, one from each state. President still appoints but every state must represented. I'm not sure if that is something you could do with that statute or not. The representation requirement may need a constitutional amendment.

[oberliner]

23. How would this make things better?

[SoCalDem]

24. I think 15 is good BUT

It would take EIGHT to take a case and THEN:

a random draw of NINE to decide the case

That would all but eliminate the sketchy nonsensical "cases" that spring up all over to entice intervention.

Why waste millions of dollars to get your "pet" issue brought to SCOTUS only to have the random draw mean that the deliberators might be from the opposite "side"

[BumRushDaShow]

26. However the historical precedent and issues of doing this

https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/

I.e., this is really something that would require that liberals/progressives literally OWN media to influence the masses to support it.