Excellent article!
I consider myself an armchair SCOTUS expert; your article synopsized a broad chapter of American history quite diligently. Kudos!
My thoughts: Thirteen justices are indeed the perfect number. I’m aware of the Court’s ‘circuitry,’ which is a supremely [pun intended] logical reason to choose thirteen justices. But there is another reason: Precedent, to use one of Alito’s favorite words. The twelve-person jury has been a precedent since the 14th century. [Wiki] The number twelve is no more magical than the number thirteen but it has pedigree. It is tried and true. Not too large, not too small, but perfectly adequate in popular perception to render a just and respected verdict. Not bound by unanimity, SCOTUS would need one more to break ties.
Since any one justice’s power would be significantly diluted in a Court almost 50% larger, nominating any one justice would not engender the hysteria of our current nomination process. A president would likely no longer be able to commandeer the Court – not even a criminal president nor a dishonest Senate Majority Leader.
Over time, the goal would be thirteen justices evolving into a fair and balanced tribunal. A jury of four conservatives, four liberals, four moderates, and a tie-breaker.
And, while we’re on the topic of SCOTUS reform, the Chief Justice is not defined in the Constitution. Congress defined the Chief Justice and can therefore redefine that office as a revolving office of eight years, thus assuring every two-term president the opportunity of naming a Chief Justice. Congress may also define constitutional “good Behaviour” [sic] in a code of ethics, if the Court itself refuses to do so.
These three judicial reforms would give the other two branches much needed checks on the Court, without interfering with constitutional jurisprudence. Indeed, our increasingly diverse population would benefit greatly from more diverse voices on the Court.
There it is. SCOTUS reform without a constitutional amendment. The only thing needed is what Democrats have demonstrated time and again that they do not have: Courage.
