AJC.com > Opinion > Opinion Talk > Archives > 2007 > October > 23 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.US12 justices on the Supreme Court?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
This week’s “We the People” topic is a suggestion by University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato that we increase the Supreme Court from nine members to 12, which he believes would address the phenomenon of one swing vote deciding all close cases.
“The problem with having an odd number of justices is that, increasingly, you find that one justice becomes the entire Supreme Court,” says Sabato, professor of politics at UVA and author of “A More Perfect Constitution. “Sandra Day O’Connor was the Supreme Court. Now Anthony Kennedy is becoming the Supreme Court. That is unhealthy.
“The advantage of having lots of 6-6 ties is, it simply upholds the lower-court judgment. So you don’t have precedents set. And courts ought to set precedent sparingly.”
Sabato also proposes that federal judges, who currently enjoy lifetime appointments, be limited to one 15-year term (including Supreme Court justices). What do you think? Should we increase the number of Supreme Court justices and limit their terms?
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By EDWARD SAVER
October 23, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this
HOW ABOUT JUST FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEY STOPED DOING THAT A LONG TIME AGO AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE IN SUCH DEEP TROUBLE TODAY. CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, NO!!! FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL INTENT, YES!!!
By jovan byars
October 24, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
We need more Constitutional Amendments, such as the Women’s Equality Amendment.
By Dan
October 24, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
ammending the constituion is a legislative function. It shouldn’t have anything to do with the court. Unfortunately ammending the constitution via precedent has become the tool of those whose agenda won’t survive the legislative process
By Dan
October 24, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
My initial reaction was to reject the notion of an even number but put in the context that it would limit the number of precedent setting opinions it sounds intriguing.
By cara
October 24, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
Get rid of Clarence Thomas.
By Tamika
October 24, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
We Just need to eat Chicken Poo Poo!!
By RM
October 24, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
What a well-thought out, terrific idea: no lifetime appointments would certainly have the justices more on their proverbial toes. And, yes, perhaps more justices would equal out to real justice without such precedent setting.
By Scooter
October 24, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Knowing many graduates of UVA has given me insight into Mr. Sabato’s belief system. That insight makes me suspicious anytime he professes to know better than the founding fathers.
I am of the belief the founding fathers would not have supported dependency pimping and class warfare becoming the political platform that Mr. Sabato nurtures.
WHO SAID THE SUPREME COURT WAS IN NEED OF A FIX, MR. SABATO?
By good idea
October 24, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
Over the weekend I heard Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak, and regardless of one’s personal ideology it was quite thrilling to hear someone at that level of public life and that close to the core of our government. It’s not easy being a S.Ct. justice, lots of responsibility is upon your shoulders and you are setting predecent for years to come. I have no idea about this issue, but I do know that typing in all caps is like screaming and no one’s going to read it. That said, I think term limits instead of lifetime appt would help and hinder, because just when you get some experience and expertise under your belt and can really make a valuable contribution your term is over. But then as they age they might be less functional, so limits might be helpful.
By CDog
October 24, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
Term limits? Definitely! Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. All elected and appointed officials should have term limits. We could keep a court from going corrupt or to ideological by pumping fresh blood into it at least every 15 years.
I am not so sure about changing the number of justices. FDR did that pretty much to stack the court in his favor. It is a great idea if the extra justices are originalists but a terrible idea if they are evolutionists.
By Donovan K.
October 24, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this
While, I might entertain the thought of amending the Constitution to “fix the Supreme Court”, I wonder how you can take the politics out of it. Amending the makeup of the Supreme Court will not lessen the amount of politics that will go with it in appointing a justice. So, we change to twelve, do we say six Democrats and six Republicans,six men and six women, six blacks and six whites…It just will not satisfy the intent. While, I might entertain the thought…a good discussion will certainly be needed.
Be patient.
By Phil
October 24, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
The Supreme court we have, (not the one we want), aided and abetted the GOP coup that overruled the popular vote in 2000 and took the election from Gore and gave it to Bush.
This entire Supreme Court belongs behind bars.
By Savage One
October 24, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
Get them out of those silly black robes and into something that says….FUN!!
By GaLiberal
October 24, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this
I agree in concept that 6-6 ties would be better than several 5-4 decisions. The public doesn’t buy in to such narrow decisions. The problem with 12 justices is there will be alliances formed to make sure there are sufficient votes on one side. So instead of 5-4 decisions you will have 7-5 decisions. Will the public buy into a 2 vote vs 1 vote margin? I doubt it. Only where there is at least a majority or more will the public accept the decision. This would be even harder under a 12 justice court.
Limiting justices to one 15-yr term is a bad idea. You want some level of consistency and stability that lasts well beyond one administration or Congress. Also, lifetime appointments ensures that justices are freed (at least in concept) from political agendas. They can speak their mind without repercussions from the party.
By TONY
October 24, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this
FIRST….SOMEONE GIVE ME AN EARLY BDAY GIFT AND SHOOT CLARENCE IN THE HEAD…JUST A DISGRACE TO THE RACE!!!!!!
SECOND….FOLLOW THE CONSITUTION
THIRD…TAKE THE LIFE APPOINTMENT AWAY
By Charlie
October 24, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this
I can’t agree with the idea of expanding the court while George W. Bush is president. Do you really want him to appoint 3 more justices? That will just result in a lot of 8-4 decisions. (I know that most of metro Atlanta would probably disagree with this sentiment.)
By JD
October 24, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
I find the statement “The Supreme court we have, (not the one we want), aided and abetted the GOP coup that overruled the popular vote in 2000 and took the election from Gore and gave it to Bush.” intriguing on two counts:
1) The Court we have now is not the Court that was sitting in 2000. 2) There was not a single recount, done by any entity, that showed Gore winning the popular vote in Florida.
By BIG D
October 24, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this
There is nothing wrong with the current make up of the Supreme Court.
By Dan
October 25, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
Sounds like Tony has multiple personalities, he wants the constitution followed and want to get rid of the judge that follows it most closely. He may even have less of an understanding of the constitution than Phil who thinks the 2000 election was stolen from Gore.
By wHAAAT
October 27, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
The truth is that the Supreme Court tried to stay out of the Gore/Bush election but the Fla Supreme court seized the election and corrupted the process. Their intervention was essential.
By billy spruell
October 28, 2007 7:33 PM | Link to this
All of this BS is just the glorification of the uninformed opinion. Most of you have never read a single decision written by the U.S. Supreme Court. You have no idea about how a case gets to the court and even less about how it is decided. There will always be disagreements about their decisions but that is the nature of the court. That is why we have two other branches of government. Change the Court? Hell, you don’t even know how it works now. Get over it.
By John C. Snider
November 6, 2007 8:06 AM | Link to this
You could make the Supreme Court have 100 members and you’d still get close decisions. Nine justices seems like plenty to me.
As far as term limits, how about appointing Justices for life, but with a mandatory retirement at 75?
www.americanfreethought.com