From the article: Current U.S. Supreme Court Justices
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?
9 justices is DEFINITELY enough
- I believe that 9 justices is definitely enough justices. This is enough justices due the fact that each member can have an effect on the decision is reached. I'm sure that even with less justices, it would be enough to make a great decision. Odd number of justices are better than NONE.
- —Guest erica
How many justices is enough?
- 9 seems enough and $200k I think appropriate. The problem is bias's and the ability to profit via the market, etc. in any way due to inside information. Speech making for profit should be curtailed, and I believe 12 yr terms should be the law. Since corruption is the devil of government a system of recall needs to be but in place and expeditiously enforced. It wouldn't hurt if the dsame were done on many members of the current Congress. I disagreed with Thomas's appointment and am disappointed with his performance in it's entirety. And of course the Citizens United fiasco leaves me to wonder that the entirety of the SC doesn't need a reworking. But by who, the current Congress? I think the majority of the elected and appointed salaried employees of the American people see us as inhabitants of their personal fiefdoms, and that it's their right to tell us what we will get for better or worse. The SC acts in much the same way today. The so called Seventeenther's are a good example of this.
- —Guest Don
- Clearly, an odd number is required for decisions. In my opinion - considering recusals, 9 is a good number. After Roe v Wade, politics became evident in selection of Supreme Court justices. Under Kennedy, Byron White had 8 questions in a 15 minute confirmation hearing - he was very conservative. 4 justices will turn 80 during the next presidential term. Better get out and vote!
9 is Fine
- 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
- i think that the number they have now is a good number for our union
- —Guest charlotte
- 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
9 is enough/9 isn't the problem
- 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.
- these are the most important people elected/apppointed in our society. all of them should be subject to recall
- —Guest linda z
- 9 - and not appointed for life - i completely agree with guest Marty.
- —Guest jill
- all of them are very good surpereme court justices
- —Guest desi
9 is adequate
- 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
9 IS ENOUGH..IT WORKED FOR YEARS......
- 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
1-15 of 38Next