Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although the number of judges has grown since the founding of this nation, the federal government has exponentially grown in size compared to the only check and balance we have in the government. The SCOTUS can only review cases so slowly, whereas the president, congress, and various agencies run free to the point where the SCOTUS cannot keep up.
Although the number of judges has grown since the founding of this nation, the federal government has exponentially grown in size compared to the only check and balance we have in the government. The SCOTUS can only review cases so slowly, whereas the president, congress, and various agencies run free to the point where the SCOTUS cannot keep up.
I've never heard the SCOTUS complain that there are too many cases and not enough time (not saying they haven't, just haven't heard of it before). Regardless of how many members there are, they act as a single unit when it comes to deliberating and deciding cases, so I don't see how it would make much difference how many justices there were. If there were less, they could theoretically come to decisions faster, but not necessarily.
Ah yes the liberals will now push to shove more judges onto the court since the option was tossed aside. Just sit back and watch all they try and do now with no checks. The founders are turning in their graves as the liberals toss more dirt on them that's for sure. Sad times ahead. I feel so bad for my children and grandchildren because this country is now lost............gone.
Ah yes the liberals will now push to shove more judges onto the court since the option was tossed aside. Just sit back and watch all they try and do now with no checks. The founders are turning in their graves as the liberals toss more dirt on them that's for sure. Sad times ahead. I feel so bad for my children and grandchildren because this country is now lost............gone.
There needs to be a way to make them be able to handle a larger case load to keep up with the sheer size of the government.* The court has to reject many cases, and the waiting list is long enough to have cases spend years before finally being heard.
BS. There needs to be a way for folks to stop crying about BS to get put on the docket. However that can't be done. Well with Obama as president who knows he may start picking what cases he wants heard? We shall see. There is a reason why it takes so long to get to the supreme court of the land. I don't like lawyers and courts and the like myself but they play a big part in our world. They make up a third of the government. If you start tinkering with it and start tinkering with senate rules and start tinkering with oh I don't know any part of it who knows where we end up. I don't want to find out. We have been fine for all these years now folks want to start tinkering...........get some legos and leave us alone.
Last thing we need is to give the President ability to pack the court more.
That is the FIRST thing liberals need. They can't get anything passed by popular vote so the have to pack the courts and I guarantee you Obama and co are working overtime finding commies all over to do that very thing. Sad times ahead for us all.
There needs to be a way to make them be able to handle a larger case load to keep up with the sheer size of the government.* The court has to reject many cases, and the waiting list is long enough to have cases spend years before finally being heard.
*without sacrificing justice...
rubbish. first note that if the court size is increased, all that will do is slow things down further as more judges would be asking questions. second the scotus was designed to be THE highest court in the land, and as such can only handle so many cases per year anyway. it was never designed to handle every case that goes through the legal system, only the ones that the court decides to take. and if they choose not to take a case, that is in fact a ruling in and of itself, remember that when they refuse a case, they are upholding the lower courts decision by rote.
9 is a good number. No need to raise the cost of the courts as these judges only get the best. The case load is not an issue, not every ruling of lower courts needs to be brought before the SC
Given that the constitution is the basis - the foundation if you will - of our constitutional republic, there is no need for speed in reviewing cases on a constitutional basis. None. Due diligence is better, rather than speed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
