Supreme Court Expansion: A Call for Geographical Representation
The United States Supreme Court, often referred to as the SC, currently consists of nine justices. However, the question of whether the SC should expand to include more justices, particularly to address the matter of geographical representation, is a contentious one. Some argue that expanding the number of justices could lead to political manipulation and corruption, while others believe that increasing the number of justices would enhance the Court's diversity and better represent the nation's regions.
The Current State of the Supreme Court
As of now, the SC has nine justices, a number that has remained unchanged since its establishment in 1869. It is worth noting that the number of district and circuit courts does not directly determine the number of Supreme Court justices. In fact, there are nearly 94 district courts, depending on how you count them.
One of the arguments against expanding the SC is that doing so could lead to the Court being packed with justices appointed for political gain. This could undermine the Court's role as an impartial arbiter of the law. Moreover, extending the terms of Federal judges to 20 years could eliminate the controversial practice of life tenure, thereby introducing a more principled approach to judicial appointments with an added ethics clause requiring justices to report personal gifts.
The Need for Geographical Representation
One of the most pressing issues in the current makeup of the Supreme Court is its geographical imbalance. Currently, 19 states have never produced a Supreme Court justice, and those who have been appointed are overwhelmingly "coastal elites" from states such as Massachusetts and New York. Such a lack of regional diversity can lead to justices who lack direct experience with the lived realities of various regions of the country.
To address this imbalance, some suggest expanding the Court to 11 justices. This would ensure that each justice has a strong connection to a different geographic region, improving representation and understanding of regional nuances. For instance, justices from the 9th Circuit, which includes states like Alaska and Hawaii, do not have a direct connection to similar regions, which can create a disconnect in interpreting legal issues specific to those regions.
Strategies for Ensuring Geographical Diversity
One strategy to achieve this is through the appointment of judges who have experience in multiple regions. For example, Amy Coney Barrett, who grew up in the 5th Circuit and worked in the 7th Circuit, offers a more balanced perspective than those who are only familiar with a single circuit. Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts, with his experience in the Midwest and DC, provides a broader understanding of legal issues that transcend regional boundaries.
Another approach is to establish "at-large" seats for the DC and Federal Circuits, allowing justices from across the country to be appointed to these circuits. This would further enhance the Court's ability to represent the interests of all geographic regions.
Conclusion
The expansion of the Supreme Court to 11 justices is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. While there are valid concerns about political manipulation and corruption, increasing the number of justices could lead to a more representative and fairer Court. By embracing geographical representation, the Supreme Court could better serve the needs of all regions of the United States, ensuring that legal decisions are made with a deep understanding of the diverse experiences and perspectives that make up the nation.
As the nation continues to grapple with this issue, it is essential to weigh the benefits of increasing representation against the potential risks of political fervor. The goal should be to create a Supreme Court that not only upholds the law but also resonates with the people it serves.