2006-07-01 15:51:22 · 8 answers · asked by johnedwards2006 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The Constitution does not specify the number of justices. I'm not sure why people answer questions that they don't have any knowledge of.
Congress decides how many justices sit on the Supreme Court, though the President can nominate as many justices as he wants. Congress could change the number whenever it likes. The number has varied over time, for various reasons.
Wikipedia has some good information on the history of the court, including a discussion of the numbers.
2006-07-01 16:01:22 · answer #1 · answered by Ron C 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. The plan failed in Congress and the court changed course (see the switch in time that saved nine).
2006-07-01 22:56:48 · answer #2 · answered by UberMommy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To cut down on the chance to have a tie. An odd number cannot split evenly. However with the recent vote where Alito recused himself, I suppose a tie is possible. As to why 9, that I do not know.
2006-07-01 22:56:12 · answer #3 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, that way there are no ties. However, I think F.D. Roosevelt tried to raise it up to 13 Justices so that he could get more work done. Then everyone got mad at him and he didn't get reelected.
2006-07-01 22:57:09 · answer #4 · answered by c_c_runner88 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Just to make it complicated. All those white haired university types deciding our future. They probably make their decisions on what they ate the night before!
2006-07-01 22:58:21 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
that's the way it was decided way back when.
At least our forefathers were smart enough to make it an odd number to avoid voting ties.
2006-07-01 22:54:47 · answer #6 · answered by Isles1015 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because that is the limit set by the Constitution. (Interestingly, you can have less.)
2006-07-01 22:55:06 · answer #7 · answered by Christina D 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No tie votes.
2006-07-01 22:54:53 · answer #8 · answered by Spike Spiegel 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋