Post

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

I've said it before, I'll say it again: pitch it as increasing SCOTUS to at least 100 Justices, with randomly selected pools of 9 to hear each case, such that no single Justice matters so much.

Will W@wweldon.bsky.social

There should be an earnest call to pack the courts by Dem leadership. It should be a thought out campaign to explain to the American people why it’s necessary.

Michael Chermside
@mcherm.com

I think that would not work because it would destroy stare decisis. Everything would be decided by the random draw of judges for a given case, and everyone would know it. The result would be a breakdown of consistent rules for law; every case appealed to SCOTUS to see which panel it gets.

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

I don't see why it would ruin stare decisis at all. It should still hold as it does (in theory!) now in which a previous court (which may have been made up by 9 different justices) ruled differently. Stare decisis is about The Court itself, not the specific Justices.

Michael Chermside
@mcherm.com

As the current court demonstrates, courts are willing to overturn previous decisions (or just ignore them) sometimes. Justices would be FAR more willing to do so if they believe that the decision they disagree with was decided by random draw (and this time there's a better draw).

0 reposts0 likes

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

I still don't see why it would be any different. We don't seem to have that issue in Circuit Courts which are also random draw. They tend to take precedent seriously. Why would this be different?

Michael Chermside
@mcherm.com

First, I should acknowledge that I may well be wrong. But I think (1) some circuit court cases are reviewed en banc (especially the significant, controversial ones), and (2) circuit courts know that SCOTUS can overturn or sustain a position, so ignoring stare decisis isn't the only fix for bad law.