In 1937, President Franklin D Roosevelt proposed an idea that would now be known as “US Supreme court packing”. Court-packing is increasing the number of seats in court to change up the courtroom. In 2019 it was brought back up after Donald Trump appointed Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In 2020, they suggested expanding the court to 15 justices. There are many pros and cons to why we should or shouldn't expand the courtroom.
There are many pros of court-packing. One of which is the court is somewhat imbalanced, and adding justices would ensure that it never reflects only one party’s political agenda. Also, the US Constitution does not say how many justices to have on the supreme court, so it would be easy to change it to more than nine.
But, while there are pros, there are also cons. A big con would be that each president would just be allowed to add justices for rank political reasons. Also, another reason why it is fine where it's at, is that historical precedent most strongly supports a nine-judge supreme court is what's best.
In my opinion, I do not think that the Supreme court should add any more seats. I think that because it has done its best at nine justices, why change it? Also, it would give the presidential party a big advantage in the court.
Do you think there should be nine justices or do you think we should have more?
Do you think it would be unfair to the opposite party of the president if it was changed?
https://www.procon.org/headlines/us-supreme-court-packing-top-2-pros-and-cons/
Replies
I agree that nine justices have worked just fine for many years.
I have no preference rather the supreme court should add more seats or not. I think that if it would be beneficial they should add more seats, but otherwise they should not. I have no idea what is happening in the court as of now. I do not pay attention hardly at all.
I understand why you would want them to do what is best, even when you don't pay attention to the supreme court.
I think some people sturgle with change and things like this that have a strong precedent would be hard to change because people can always argue that it is fine the way it is and that there hasn't been that many problems with the way it is so why change it. Another problem could be that it could be worse after changing it and it could be hard to change back and it could be made unfair but you also never know what will work best until it has changed.
I agree that change is hard for people, especially because they don't know if it will make it better or worse.
I personally don't think that the supreme court should add more seats because they have been working like this for several years and has worked good. I think nine justices is enough. We have a democracy so it is technically fair because it is people's votes that decided which party is on the lead.
I agree that they have been doing nine justices for many years and it has worked well.
I don't think that the court should add more. If they were to add more then they would have to add 2 to keep it uneven for the decision-making. I think that nine people is just fine. They have been doing just fine for lots of years, I don't think that there needs to be change until something goes wrong.
I agree that they have been doing fine with nine for many years.
I think that the supreme court shouldn't add more seats because they are functioning fine how it is right now, and they have for many years. If having nine justices became innefective, I think that is when the government should reconsider, but as of right now, nine justices is working just fine.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next