Many will argue against what I am writing here and they will give a variety of reasons as to why; that’s expected and that’s fine. In any polity there is a marketplace for ideas; lately the blogosphere (whatever this is/ lol) has been slowly moving to corner a segment of that market. That too is fine, since to me, the more segments to that market the better- even with all those conspiracy theories about “nine-eleven” flying around the internet. Today is Sunday 1st October, 2006; it’s exactly the 216year and 8months anniversary of the first sitting of the US Supreme court (2/1/1790). Its structure was created by the first bill introduced in the US Senate (Judiciary Act of 1789), allowing for a Chief justice and five associates. That bill also created 13 districts with three divisions (East-South and Middle).
Over the years little has changed relative to the Supreme Court. Today we have eight associates to aid the CJ. I think it’s time we move to a structure that allows for a Chief Justice, a Deputy Chief Justice (who takes over if the CJ is incapacitated) and fifteen associates.
Now some will argue why fix something that’s not broken; and that’s fine. But is the SC working to its maximum efficacy? Let’s see: every year there are about 4000 applications for review, only a score or so of those cases are reviewed; is this in the best interest of justice? With more members the workload can be increased. With more members there is greater deliberative input.Sometimes the issues before the court are so difficult, that having members coming from different perspectives, different experiences, races, ethnicities, genetic-nationalities, cultures, environments, religions, philosophies, upbringings, livelihoods and such, can do nothing less than inform the debate/ discussions more.
It’s time to revamp the anachronistic structure; we can go to an East, West, North, South and Middle (Central) set-up. We can go to 15 districts whereby each associate supervises one. Demographic changes over the years dictate this. Population shifts necessitate not only contemporary (re)analysis, but also a color-composition shift on the bench itself.
In its history, the SC has had one hundred and eleven members, only two have been black (male/ both), and only two have been women. In a country as diverse as this one (probably the most diverse in the world) we need to let the SC reflect that diversity in a more expressive way. Enlargement of the court membership will allow for more flexibility in selections; and more diversity too. One hundred and seven white males out of one hundred and eleven slots, reflects only that white males have too much power in this society; don’t even try to tell me that it has been about qualifications, credentials, ability, expertise, talent, experience and potential. It has been about connections, clout, race, class and gender. It has also ben about discrimination and exclusion. It is time to shift away from that old formula for court-membership; its time to get to a more transparent selection process-although I must admit that this is indeed a sticky-wicket.
Look, since Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court has emerged as the final arbiter of All disputes in this country; with the accumulated/combined and implied power of federal, state and city/local governments behind it. Even the Civil war didn’t transcend its power. It’s probably the most respected institution in the land, and that respect will only grow if we were to see some Asians, Native-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos (as), and such, as members sitting on the bench. Of course we can also increase female and black membership while we are at it.
Look, I know my detractors here will say that I am no attorney, so why get into all this legal stuff ; well the SC is too important for me not to speak out-even with my limited expertise. While we are it, we can revamp and review the needs of the circuit courts- as it relates to administration, role, function, authority, structure, composition and membership, etc. When less than one percent of your annual applicants are considered for review then it’s time to re-assess. What do you think? If you agree with me, then let’s start a movement aiming to enlargen the SC membership.
Stay tuned-in folks.