iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15/10/2026

Calls for expanding #SCOTUS are entirely (and increasingly) understandable. But as today's "One First" explains, there are at least four difficult questions that those who support expansion should have to answer—especially as compared to other possible reforms: www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-257-...

Screenshot from the post listing the four questions Court expansion proponents should have to answer:

1. How do we avoid touching off a race to the bottom, where each time one party controls the House, Senate, and presidency, it expands the Court to ensure an ideologically and politically sympathetic majority?

2. If a race to the bottom is unavoidable, how do we avoid further (and potentially fatal) erosion of public confidence in the Court—which will quite transparently be little more than a lever of power for whichever party last had such a trifecta?

3. If eroding public confidence in the Court is a feature, and not a bug, how do we insulate against the same erosion of public confidence in lower federal courts?

4. What is the case for why expansion is a better way to achieve the desired reforms than alternatives that would (or, at least, should) avoid many of these forward-looking concerns?

463719170

JessicaBlack @jessbheart.bsky.social · 15/10/2026

New rules entirely: Each president appoints 9 judges, they serve 22 year appointments. We'd have 45 judges to draft 9 judge benches from so trials could be had year round with more trials addressed. Also extreme code of conduct overhaul that's VERY enforceable.

121

Justin Stanley @justindstanley.com · 15/10/2026

This would require a constitutional amendment

100