A better and updated SCOTUS

[jayem]

Each year, SCOTUS receives about 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for writs of certiorari. The Court usually accepts about 80 for hearings. There have to be cases where a SCOTUS opinion would be important and set nationwide precedents. But here we are in the 21st century, while the highest court in the land only has 9 Justices--a number that hasn't changed since 1869. Here's a suggestion to modernize the Court, so more cases can be heard:

1) Add 5 more Justices, to make a total of 14. Then divide the Court into 2 panels of 7 Justices each. Panel A would be presided over by the Chief Justice. Panel B would be headed by the most senior associate Justice. This will immediately double the number of cases that can be heard.

2) Both panels will jointly review writs. This way, cases with similar issues won't be adjudicated by both panels. And if 3 Justices from a panel agree the case has merit, then the writ will be accepted.

3) Each panel will hear its chosen cases by digital communication. SCOTUS only deal with laws. It decides if a law was properly followed, or if a law is unconstitutional. Arguments are made by attorneys, there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence is introduced. Each panel will hear arguments electronically. There will be no need to travel to Washington, DC. This will greatly improve efficiency and reduce costs.

4) Each panel will deliberate after the case is heard. Just like the Court does now. 4 votes, either for or against, will be decisive.

This won't require a Constitutional amendment. It only needs majorities in both the House and Senate, and the President's signature. The President will still appoint Justices when there's a vacancy. And the Congress will still need a simple majority to ratify the appointment. And as I posted in a different thread, each Justice will serve until s(he) decides to retire, or until the Justice reaches the age of 80. This will also require an act of Congress.

 

[Pommer]

Each year, SCOTUS receives about 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for writs of certiorari. The Court usually accepts about 80 for hearings. There have to be cases where a SCOTUS opinion would be important and set nationwide precedents. But here we are in the 21st century, while the highest court in the land only has 9 Justices--a number that hasn't changed since 1869. Here's a suggestion to modernize the Court, so more cases can be heard:

1) Add 5 more Justices, to make a total of 14. Then divide the Court into 2 panels of 7 Justices each. Panel A would be presided over by the Chief Justice. Panel B would be headed by the most senior associate Justice. This will immediately double the number of cases that can be heard.

2) Both panels will jointly review writs. This way, cases with similar issues won't be adjudicated by both panels. And if 3 Justices from a panel agree the case has merit, then the writ will be accepted.

3) Each panel will hear its chosen cases by digital communication. SCOTUS only deal with laws. It decides if a law was properly followed, or if a law is unconstitutional. Arguments are made by attorneys, there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence is introduced. Each panel will hear arguments electronically. There will be no need to travel to Washington, DC. This will greatly improve efficiency and reduce costs.

4) Each panel will deliberate after the case is heard. Just like the Court does now. 4 votes, either for or against, will be decisive.

This won't require a Constitutional amendment. It only needs majorities in both the House and Senate, and the President's signature. The President will still appoint Justices when there's a vacancy. And the Congress will still need a simple majority to ratify the appointment. And as I posted in a different thread, each Justice will serve until s(he) decides to retire, or until the Justice reaches the age of 80. This will also require an act of Congress.

Yes, this is long past “due”.
And, will continue to remain there, for quite a while. earliest passage would be ‘29 (for ‘32 since the logistics would have to be worked out.

Even if they did the majority of the oral-arguments, over video, for the most part the Justices would likely eschew this simply because then one’s electronic devices may one day be used against them…unless this Bill would include a Supreme Court blanket-privilege over court-related topics, (and all other topics lest someone might think that their social media might be influencing them).

I’d triple the number of justices, 27, two for each Circuit and one to take overflow from any…the tradition will begin with Roberts as he appointed himself this Lone Ranger Lone Wolf, saving the Republic one Day at a time!, but some weeks he’ll get no action at all, so it’s a cushy job, so the Chief Justice would have it if he wanted it.
We might need a new and bigger Supreme Court building/complex, huh?

I can hear the battle lines being drawn up now, with the people who decried “defund the police” rhetoric, arguing for underfunding the Supreme Court, since adding Justices can only move the Court Left, because the Court is up against the guardrails on the Right.

2029, early, new Congress and high on the agenda.

 

[jayem]

One more item I forgot to mention. An ethics code with teeth. Which will apply not only to SCOTUS Justices, but to all judges in the federal judiciary. And also to clerks, assistants, secretarial staff and anyone working in the federal court system. No more schmoozing with, or gifts from wealthy big wigs who may have cases pending before the Court. Influencers forbidden. As the Constitution says, Justices keep their offices as long as they observe “good behavior.” That must be strictly enforced.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Interesting proposal.

 

[Richard T]

You have a good idea but you might have to tweak it some. Possibly because two panels might be considered too separate. What if one panel takes a gun rights case and the other panel takes a similar one, yet the outcome is completely different? Article III Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Interestingly the Supreme Court itself would rule what constitutes "one Court"

Whoever is President at the time of the Act would have a lot of power in appointing the extra judges.

Since law clerks do much of the work, if you wanted more cases, you could probably just hire more clerks.

 

[jayem]

You have a good idea but you might have to tweak it some. Possibly because two panels might be considered too separate. What if one panel takes a gun rights case and the other panel takes a similar one, yet the outcome is completely different? Article III Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Interestingly the Supreme Court itself would rule what constitutes "one Court"

Whoever is President at the time of the Act would have a lot of power in appointing the extra judges.

In point #2 of the OP I addressed the issue of each panel hearing the same or similar cases. I stated that they’ll jointly decide which cases will be heard by each panel. There shouldn’t be any overlap.

As I see it, we’ll still have one Supreme Court. It’s just divided into 2 teams. Kinda like a construction company working on an office building. One team does the framing and the other team installs drywall. More is accomplished by division of labor.

 

[Pommer]

In point #2 of the OP I addressed the issue of each panel hearing the same or similar cases. I stated that they’ll jointly decide which cases will be heard by each panel. There shouldn’t be any overlap.

As I see it, we’ll still have one Supreme Court. It’s just divided into 2 teams. Kinda like a construction company working on an office building. One team does the framing and the other team installs drywall. More is accomplished by division of labor.

Just as now, the Circuit Courts’ opinions would hold some sway as to the reasoning of cases.

If you’ve ever read a SCOTUS opinion, you see all of the internal references to cases past, since, at the appellate level and up, decisions are vested in how, (for to a lesser extent, what) reasoning was used in former cases that appear to be similar to the instant case.
This brings up an interesting point, do we need more Circuits other than the 12+ the DC circuit, (not to mention the Federal circuit)?

 

[Fantine]

The New York Times came up with several good proposals a few years ago.
One plus they noted: if there are more justices, the death or retirement of one has a much smaller impact.
Even two renegade justices on the take wouldn't be the nightmare it is today because their horrific impact would be diluted.
Another note was that the caseload has grown so drastically all the federal courts need to be expanded.

 

[JSRG]

Each year, SCOTUS receives about 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for writs of certiorari. The Court usually accepts about 80 for hearings. There have to be cases where a SCOTUS opinion would be important and set nationwide precedents. But here we are in the 21st century, while the highest court in the land only has 9 Justices--a number that hasn't changed since 1869. Here's a suggestion to modernize the Court, so more cases can be heard:

1) Add 5 more Justices, to make a total of 14. Then divide the Court into 2 panels of 7 Justices each. Panel A would be presided over by the Chief Justice. Panel B would be headed by the most senior associate Justice. This will immediately double the number of cases that can be heard.

2) Both panels will jointly review writs. This way, cases with similar issues won't be adjudicated by both panels. And if 3 Justices from a panel agree the case has merit, then the writ will be accepted.

3) Each panel will hear its chosen cases by digital communication. SCOTUS only deal with laws. It decides if a law was properly followed, or if a law is unconstitutional. Arguments are made by attorneys, there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence is introduced. Each panel will hear arguments electronically. There will be no need to travel to Washington, DC. This will greatly improve efficiency and reduce costs.

4) Each panel will deliberate after the case is heard. Just like the Court does now. 4 votes, either for or against, will be decisive.

This won't require a Constitutional amendment. It only needs majorities in both the House and Senate, and the President's signature. The President will still appoint Justices when there's a vacancy. And the Congress will still need a simple majority to ratify the appointment. And as I posted in a different thread, each Justice will serve until s(he) decides to retire, or until the Justice reaches the age of 80. This will also require an act of Congress.

I am not so certain why this would be necessary. The argument made is that it's necessary to keep up with cases... but is it? Is there evidence that the SCOTUS needs to take more cases?

The sole point of evidence that there's a need for them to take more is that they receive 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for writ of certiorari, but only accept about 80. But the majority of those don't have any requirement to be taken at all; a lot are just going to be Hail Mary attempts to change an outcome.

Furthermore, pretty much anything that goes to the SCOTUS already has a decision made for it by a lower court. So even if the SCOTUS were to stop taking any cases at all, the judicial system would keep on working. You'd end up with less consistency in the judgments due to there not being a way to resolve circuit splits, but by and large everything would go on about as normal.

This seems to just be trying to claim there's a problem where there doesn't seem to be one. Even the SCOTUS itself doesn't seem to regard this as a problem, given (as far as I am aware) none of its current or former members have said this is any kind of issue.

 

[Richard T]

Yews, but even if they decide to hear one case nd rule a certain way. What prevents the second panel from hearing a similar case a year later and all of a sudden you have a divided Supreme Court.

Just as now, the Circuit Courts’ opinions would hold some sway as to the reasoning of cases.

If you’ve ever read a SCOTUS opinion, you see all of the internal references to cases past, since, at the appellate level and up, decisions are vested in how, (for to a lesser extent, what) reasoning was used in former cases that appear to be similar to the instant case.
This brings up an interesting point, do we need more Circuits other than the 12+ the DC circuit, (not to mention the Federal circuit)?

In point #2 of the OP I addressed the issue of each panel hearing the same or similar cases. I stated that they’ll jointly decide which cases will be heard by each panel. There shouldn’t be any overlap.

As I see it, we’ll still have one Supreme Court. It’s just divided into 2 teams. Kinda like a construction company working on an office building. One team does the framing and the other team installs drywall. More is accomplished by division of labor.

Suppose panel A decides to limit gun rights in year one a decision that is 4 and 3? In year 2, The 3 dissenting votes, vote for panel B to hear a similar case. So now B reverses the precedent? Anyway, it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide if more than one panel constituted a single court. I think splitting the panels up would cause dissension. Lawyers would know what panel they wanted, which one gave them the best outcome. It could divide the court and there is no guarantee that the ideology of each panel is fairly equal and one panel would be conservative and the other liberal. seems it might be a problem. Your idea to improve and expand the court is great though.

 

[durangodawood]

.....
1) Add 5 more Justices, to make a total of 14. Then divide the Court into 2 panels of 7 Justices each. Panel A would be presided over by the Chief Justice. Panel B would be headed by the most senior associate Justice. This will immediately double the number of cases that can be heard.
.....

Im concerned about what kind of chaos would result from deciding:

1. How the ideological makeup of each panel would be sorted from the 14 total justices.

2. how and which cases are distributed among the 2 panels considering the inevitable different ideological disposition of the 2 different panels.

 

[jayem]

Im concerned about what kind of chaos would result from deciding:

1. How the ideological makeup of each panel would be sorted from the 14 total justices.

2. how and which cases are distributed among the 2 panels considering the inevitable different ideological disposition of the 2 different panels.

The Justices would be seated the same as they’ve been for the last 200+ years. The President nominates a candidate, the Senate Judiciary Committee questions him/her, and then the whole Senate votes either to confirm or deny the appointment. If there should be a conservative President and Senate majority, then each new Justice will likely be conservative. And vice versa if the Pres. and Senate are liberal.

And I stated in the OP that the 2 panels will decide together which cases are heard.

 

[durangodawood]

The Justices would be seated the same as they’ve been for the last 200+ years. The President nominates a candidate, the Senate Judiciary Committee questions him/her, and then the whole Senate votes either to confirm or deny the appointment. If there should be a conservative President and Senate majority, then each new Justice will likely be conservative. And vice versa if the Pres. and Senate are liberal.

And I stated in the OP that the 2 panels will decide together which cases are heard.

OK. so the panels are never re-sorted.

Still, for the initial assignment to panels, we can imagine the game playing as its determined where the "liberal" or "conservative" justices will end up.

And then, lets say we have a conservative majority panel and a liberal one. What sort of catfight happens when ideologically sensitive cases get distributed. The whole country will see, in certain instances, that the allocation moment was where the case was really decided for us.

 

[Fantine]

The Justices would be seated the same as they’ve been for the last 200+ years. The President nominates a candidate, the Senate Judiciary Committee questions him/her, and then the whole Senate votes either to confirm or deny the appointment. If there should be a conservative President and Senate majority, then each new Justice will likely be conservative. And vice versa if the Pres. and Senate are liberal.

And I stated in the OP that the 2 panels will decide together which cases are heard.

With a large increase, there needs to be a bipartisan approach. If raising by 5, for example, each party nominates 2 and the 5th would be picked for being the most moderate apolitical judge out there, approved by both parties.

 

[jayem]

With a large increase, there needs to be a bipartisan approach. If raising by 5, for example, each party nominates 2 and the 5th would be picked for being the most moderate apolitical judge out there, approved by both parties.

I'll go for that. It's very reasonable. But given the current divisiveness in Congress, it's hard to imagine that any bipartisan measure would be adopted.