The US Supreme Court is too small. So said Richard Allen Posner an American (USA) jurist and economist, who is a United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals’ Seventh Circuit in Chicago, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ is a Federal Court, not a State Court. Judge Posner is also a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago, Illinois, USA Law School.Let us take a look at Judge Posner’s statement concerning the US Supreme Court.
“We have a crappy judicial system” and “most of the technicalities are antiquated crap.” We the readers need to assume the judge is referring to legal technicalities in the quoted statement. Well your honour, that sounds more like a Park Bench statement rather than a Court Bench statement; however, you have the First Amendment of the US Constitution on your side, which we need to keep in mind as we continue. Judge Posner supports increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices by ten: That is, the total number of Justices sitting in the Supreme Court would become nineteen. Let us see why the increase is needed.
Judge Posner reasons that the current Court is mediocre. Not very good, your Honour? The current Supreme Court is not very good, come, come your Honour, you cannot hide behind the First Amendment or take the Fifth (Fifth Amendment) with the mediocre statement: Name the Supreme Court Cases that were, in your opinion mediocre. Prove your reasoning is correct too.
Judge Posner also reasons the Supreme Court’s Justices are highly politicized [in their judgements] due to the political nature of the selection of the justices. Judge Posner, your Honour you are correct, 100% correct; however, the Supreme Court has been a political tool of the USA’s Executive and Legislative-Senate Branches of the US Government since 1789. Last years, 2016, the US Senate’s white supremacist’s disgraceful conduct of not holding hearings for the selection of a Supreme Court’s replacement of a deceased member most certainly helps to make you reasoning of the politicization of the US Supreme Court 100% correct; however, once again we need to have your solution to the problem. What is it?
US SC Retirement at age 80: In 1789, the idea of retiring at age 80 would have given the late night comedians, if any were around in 1789, some great material; today probably not. Today, mandatory retirement for SC Jurists at age 65 makes better sense, for one it keeps the SC’s door open and in search for twenty-first century legal ideology; however, we have a problem, the US Constitution, states in Article Three, “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.”, also means, as long as the jurists is alive. Writing mandatory retirement into Article Three means a Constitutional change involving the fifty states. What is your answer to that problem, Judge Posner?
Increasing the number of SC Jurists by ten, the Judge thinks, would lead to decisions that are less influenced by the political or personal motivations or biases of the SC Jurists. Now that ideology of yours, your Honour would make great material for today’s late night comedians; indeed, the ideology may even get some laughs on the Afternoon Cooking Programs. Don’t let me discourage you, your Honour, but do try to keep the crap off the court bench.