Readers Respond: How many justices is enough justices?

Responses: 35

Since 1869, the Supreme Court has been comprised of 9 Justices. Is 9 too many, too few or just right, and why? What Do You Think?

Nine justices is fine. There perhaps is some argument for an appointment to a term rather than a life appointment. However, this makes the court more susceptible to political pressure, whereas the judicial branch should ideally be isolated from political pressures. The problem is that judges today are activists instead of interpreters. They make the law even where the Constitution and statutes are clear. They bypass the democratic processes to create new "rights," which they pull out of the clouds, like a "right" to abortion, which effectively is a right of the Supreme Court's nine justices to tell the States, the fundamental agent of the people's interests (read the Federalist) what they must allow in such a fundamental area. This is the problem... not the number of justices.
—Guest James

Want all to stick entirely within the frame of the law, and not political parties.
—Guest Alexander

The issue that many of you are expressing about the court is what is referred to as the "counter majoritarian problem." The argument breaks down to "Hey, why are 9 unelected people imposing their constitutional views on the country over the will of an elected majority?" The counter to this is that without an outside hand (often called the "dead hand"), the rights of minorities go unprotected. Here, a "minority" is not race or religion, but merely whatever interest is not represented in the majority. Often, SCOTUS is on the forefront of the protection issue, as they were in the Civil Rights Era -- Congress did not enact significant or substantial civil rights legislation until AFTER SCOTUS stepped in and required desegregation in the educational setting. SCOTUS frustrates people for many reasons -- mainly because people feel they have very little control. This feeling is understandable, and apprehension should inspire you to vote for elected leaders you feel will best represent you.
—Guest ConGal

Clarence Thomas should be investigated for perjury. The SC has devloped a habit of supporting the rights of religious, political and corporate groups over the rights of individuals. The corruption in our government is superceded by the criminal decisions made by the SC.
—Guest cheryl shepley

An odd number is good, but because of the importance of the cases that reach this court, I believe that ALL 9 should sit every case. I also believe strongly that there should be term limits to every appointment. I have problems as well with these appointments being picked by one man (even if he is president), even though Congress must approve. What we get if a president leans strongly in either direction and supported by a Congress of the same party is a Justice with similarly strong leanings. Perhaps the appointment choice should be made by the remaining Justices, then to be approved by Congress.
—AlexHen

these are the most important people elected/apppointed in our society. all of them should be subject to recall
—Guest linda z

Nine justices should be enough to see to the tasks of the supreme court but most politicians are corrupt so we need to be especially careful of who we appoint just as we would with any position of power
—Guest Military man

HOW MANY SHOULD THE TAX PAYERS HAVE TO PAY THESE RIDICULOUS SALARIES FOR? DO YOU KNOW WHAT EACH ONE COST US OVER THEIR LIFETIME? IF 9 JUDGES CAN'T HABDLE THE JOB THEN FIND 9 WHO ARE MORE COMPETENT. I , AS A TAXPAYER AM FED UP TO THE GILLS WITH THE SIZE OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SIZE OF IT'S COST. STOP THE WASTE AND SAVE THIS COUNTRY FINANCIALLY. WE ARE TOOOO FAR IN DEBT AND NEED TO SPEND WISELY NOT WASTEFULLY. AGAIN, NINE QUALIFIED PEOPLE CAN DO THE JOB NICELY. THATS ENOUGH!!!
—Guest MARDEE

9 is adequate. The Supreme Court has made many decisions to support Administration policy and will. The Justices must, sooner or later, make decisions in the name of justice. The Westboro case being heard today is a prime example of hate speech protected by the first amendment. Hogwash! A decision to protect the free speech rights of Westboro while the family of a dead soldier is punished and anguishes mentally is fundamentally flawed in the eyes of all human beings. Justices are seated to impose justice according to the law. I see many cases of hate speech prosecution. How does this targeting of a specific family and a specific soldier at a funeral not result in FBI presence, intervention, and prosecution. Throughout history the Supreme Court has rendered decisions that were in line with policies but out of line with justice for all. For $200k plus, one would think that 9 brains could come up with decisions that result in justice for all. I know I could do it with 8 friends
—turbotat

9 is good, but the mechman who made the comment about Kagan not being able to hear 20 cases or so, should do a little homework so he realizes that not all 9 judges sit on every case, often times only 8 do to help lessen the workload of each justice. The other 8 justices will also be sitting out on a lot of cases, in this case, we just know which ones Kagan won't be on right off the bat.
—Guest galovice

right at this moment we have one too many. it seems that the most recent appointee must recuse herself for 21 of 50+ cases. i have no issue with that except that she will collecting $200K per year for doing nothing.
—mechman58

I think a bigger issue is their method of appointment. I think that the Supreme Court should be elected, not appointed. And, at the very least, should NOT be a lifetime appointment. You can have a President that is judged to be completely incompetent, voted out or even impeached, but his Supreme Court appointees serve for 30 or 40 years, until they die or retire. That's ridiculous. When we are in the situation that we find ourselves in, in modern times, when the party of the President GUARANTEES the ideology and philosophy of their nominee, the system is broken. It has long ceased being about choosing the best judge for the job, and is now about enhancing the likel;ihood of advancing a President's agenda and ideas.
—Guest Marty

1-15 of 35Next

Robert Longley
US Government Info Guide