3 ms·

I actually really like the idea of having a supreme court of 50 justices where 9 are selected randomly for each case. There's obvious problems with this but I d

I actually really like the idea of having a supreme court of 50 justices where 9 are selected randomly for each case. There's obvious problems with this but I don't see how it's obviously worse than what we have now... which is awful.

onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
A supreme Court with 50 partisan hacks, where no decision means anything, because you just continuously roll the dice until you get the ruling you want.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > you just continuously roll the dice until you get the ruling you want Judges are already randomly assigned to cases in practically every jurisdiction. You don't get to re-roll. If you mean continuously re-rolling issues, that problem is preserved whether we choose by lot or by appointment. The difference is choosing by lot out of a large group makes it more difficult to stack.
  - pseudalopex 1y ago
    Inconsistency from random assignments at lower levels is mitigated by all judges participating at higher levels.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> actually really like the idea of having a supreme court of 50 justices where 9 are selected randomly for each case Simpler: just use the appelate bench's 179 judges [1]. They become the "Judges of the supreme Court" [2]. (The only time a chief Justice is mentioned in the Constitution is when it pertains to impeachment (Art. 1 § 3). That could just be defined by statute as the longest-serving circuit judge.) Every case is assigned 9 random judges. They decide whether to hear the case. If they pass, precedent stands. If not, they hear the case and write an opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_circuit_judges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_... [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/%5B'Article',%20'I,',%20'Section',%20'3d',%20'Cl.',%20'6'%5D https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...

onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago

A supreme Court with 50 partisan hacks, where no decision means anything, because you just continuously roll the dice until you get the ruling you want.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> you just continuously roll the dice until you get the ruling you want Judges are already randomly assigned to cases in practically every jurisdiction. You don't get to re-roll. If you mean continuously re-rolling issues, that problem is preserved whether we choose by lot or by appointment. The difference is choosing by lot out of a large group makes it more difficult to stack.
- pseudalopex 1y ago
  Inconsistency from random assignments at lower levels is mitigated by all judges participating at higher levels.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> actually really like the idea of having a supreme court of 50 justices where 9 are selected randomly for each case Simpler: just use the appelate bench's 179 judges [1]. They become the "Judges of the supreme Court" [2]. (The only time a chief Justice is mentioned in the Constitution is when it pertains to impeachment (Art. 1 § 3). That could just be defined by statute as the longest-serving circuit judge.) Every case is assigned 9 random judges. They decide whether to hear the case. If they pass, precedent stands. If not, they hear the case and write an opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_circuit_judges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_... [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/%5B'Article',%20'I,',%20'Section',%20'3d',%20'Cl.',%20'6'%5D https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3...