• Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    You want more justices so they hear more cases, it’s like 80% of cases requesting supreme Court review never see the Supreme Court because they say they don’t have the time and their caseload is too high.

    • panthera_@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      More justices won’t hear more cases since all the justices hear the same cases. It might be slower since more justices would now be asking questions.

        • panthera_@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Good point but then the extra justices would have to be paid with taxpayer money, and more justices would be asking questions in cases before the entire court.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            he extra justices would have to be paid with taxpayer money

            lol wtf

            and more justices would be asking questions in cases before the entire court.

            you really didn’t understand the assignment at all.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        No you’d still have 9 hearing a case you’d just have sets. There’s no rule that says every justice has to hear every case. Staye courts already work this way.