lol

Marty, do you ever have anything significant to contribute to a thread? If so, I must have missed it.

Jim

Well at least you picked an odd number of Justices, so that they can't vote 50/50. Other than that I can't really see anything you said having any logic in it. Every Justice is supposed* to sit and listen in carefully on every case, go study the law and vote the way they believe the law reads.

*We all know that some Justices don't give a durn about what the law says or what evidence there is, they already know which way they are going to vote when they walk in the courtroom before anyone has made an opening argument.

So basically you are saying that the Justices should be sitting there writing on opinion on a previous case while some of the other Justices pay attention to the case that is currently being argued? Therefore they could hear more cases even if they weren't paying attention to them?

Frankly I believe any Judge from a lower court who rules against what the law plainly states ought to be at the least disbarred, and preferrably taken out an shot. This would weed out the activist judges before they ever climbed up to Supreme Court rank and would certainly lessen Judges ruling in opposition to the law, which would in turn lower the workload on the Supreme Court because there would be a lot less cases coming before them.

A Justice is no different than any other worker in America. If the Justices think their case load is too much, find a different line of work. No need to add more. If anything let the justices add an extra clerk or 2. Save the tax payer money!

I thought his assessment was accurate.JIMMY

Even if they're all working to capacity, there's no way nine people can do as much work as thirteen.

Jim

Hahahaaaaa chase many ambulances JIMMY

It doesn't matter if there are nine, nineteen or fifty-nine, all of the justices will be seated at the same time listening to oral arguments. Your argument holds no water.

Absolutely...you should pay attention or just not let things fly right over your head......

I hope SCOTUS considers the needs of all of us, not just the city scum.

Attending oral arguments is just a small part of their job. Studying the briefing, studying the product of the law clerks' research, and writing the decisions make up the majority of their work. The more justices they have, the more cases they can handle.

Jim

They all have staff for studies. 13 justices arguing among them selves will likely take more time than 9 trying to reach a consensus. The bigger the committee the more humps on the horse.

Law clerks, yes. But justices read the important cases themselves.

Jim

Anyhow, as I said, I'm not arguing the Dems should be able to appoint four more justices. And I don't think they have the legislative horsepower to enact it. I think they're fools to try.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the current make-up of the Court. A liberal majority Court would probably do irreparable damage to our Second Amendment rights.

Jim

Each and every justice has to collectively hear the case presented before them as a body. They only effective way to increase the load is to have more than one Supreme Court. Then you don't have a Supreme Court.

If this is true (and i am sure it is) then that says to me that the court is a fraud and not doing their job. They are supposed to look at the facts of the case then rule on the letter of the the law. If they do that, their own personal feelings would have no bering on the outcome. So why are their personal opinions so important... Because they are people not worthy of being on the court to start with.

It seems to me that if there were more justices ......and IF that allowed a lighter work load for each justice.........the real result would be that some justices would be woefully uninformed because they would have not paid attention to each case. I know it's a personal bias but I believe the liberal justices go into every case with their collective mind made up ......regardless of the law or the Constitution. The rare exceptions are the unanimous decisions. But generally, ideology informs the liberal decision.

In this particular case, IF ( big if) the pro gun rights view prevails, I predict Thomas will write the the opinion for the majority and Roberts the minority. I don't believe any other justice is required to write an opinion unless he/she chooses. So there is no automatic increase in work load.

Perhaps it would be more efficient to increase the number of clerks for the existing justices ??

Even better, it should be required that Congress and state legislatures include headnotes to each piece of legislation that identifies and explains the Constitutional authority for each piece of legislation.

Congress should also drastically reduce or eliminate the making of law by regulatory agencies. The alphabet groups write more law and bring more legal action than the actual branches of government.

Of course none of those things would further the Dem agenda

[/quote]

Attending oral arguments is just a small part of their job. Studying the briefing, studying the product of the law clerks' research, and writing the decisions make up the majority of their work. The more justices they have, the more cases they can handle.

Jim
[/quote]


This makes NO logical sense. Every Justice is supposed to do all of that except write an opinion for every case. Putting more Justices on there wouldn't lighten anyones work load because you are all supposed to be doing the same thing.

the only thing jimmy makes sense on is that he is in favor of court packing because the libs have control of everything else, if the gop/Trump had control he would be against it....he is for globalism not the USA, that has been his consistent theme...