Skeptic Project

Posted: Feb 06, 2011 - 10:47

(0)

Level: 12
CS Original

I've heard complaints about Supreme Court decisions ending in 5-4 votes that have longterm consequences. Of course, its members are chosen by the president and carry a life-long term. If a biased judge is chosen, we're stuck with their vote for a long time. Not only that, but their vote carries a lot of weight with only nine members.

Would you be in favor of increasing the size of the Supreme Court? Theoretically, it would soften the blow of bias and corruption, while increasing the chance of justice being decided upon. If the court increases to say 25 judges, the chance of a split vote (13-12) would be much slimmer. I don't know what number would be satisfactory, but it amazes me that we settle for only nine in today's world. Imagine if there were only nine senators? What about one representative per state? They're the one's creating laws, so rationally it makes sense to have a large number. Why not do the same with the Supreme Court?

Posted: Feb 06, 2011 - 10:51

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

I see no reason to change the number of SCOTUS judges. Adding more judges does not inherently remove bias.

Posted: Feb 06, 2011 - 11:03

(0)

Level: 12
CS Original

Adding more participants to an experimental study lessens bias because it improves the likelihood of the sample representing the population. Why wouldn't it be the same with SCOTUS? I'm not saying that SCOTUS should represent the people; rather, it should represent justice. FDR, for example, chose 8 justices during his presidency. It just seems like too small of a number.

Posted: Feb 06, 2011 - 11:06

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

SCOTUS doesn't represent the people, it represents the Constitution. You're conflating two entirely different concepts.

Posted: Feb 06, 2011 - 11:11

(0)

Level: 12
CS Original

If adding justices doesn't inherently remove bias, then why not have 3? Why is 9 any more reliable than 3? There has to be some increase in reliability from 3 to 9, right? If so, at what number does reliability stop increasing? Do we know that 25 would be no more reliable than 9?

Posted: Feb 06, 2011 - 11:13

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

"If adding justices doesn't inherently remove bias, then why not have 3?"

Because that's not how it was set up?

For me to take this suggestion seriously, you would need to prove that increasing the size of SCOTUS would reduce the amount of bias each judge would have. If you can do that, I might change my opinion. At this point I see no reason why increasing the amount of judges would reduce the bias in each individual judge. All it would accomplish is increasing the amount of judges with bias.

Posted: Feb 06, 2011 - 11:19

(0)

Level: 12
CS Original

Yes, but you said that adding judges doesn't inherently reduce bias. Were you saying that 9 is the number at which reliability flat lines? Does 9 have more reliability over 3?

Posted: Feb 06, 2011 - 11:22

(0)

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

I wasn't saying that at all. What I'm saying is that making a change to an extremely important part of our government would require a reasonable benefit from doing so. I have yet to see you suggest one.

Basically: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.