I have to assume any law trying to change the number of justices to zero, one, or 290,000,000 would be ruled unconstitutional by the court itself.
On a related not, I once asked what would happen if Congress passed a law saying the Supreme Court needed at least a 6-3 majority to overturn an act of Congress by ruling it was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court overturned the law in a 5-4 decision saying any majority could rule a law unconstitutional.
0? Sure. 1? Maybe. 290,000,000? I doubt it. Of course, it could never happen, and I’m sure any justice on the Supreme Court would despise such an Act, but I don’t think it’s unconstitutional, and I don’t know how any legitimate argument in that vein could be framed.
That’s an easy one. The Court’s ruling would win out. The Supreme Court is supreme, when it speaks.
–Cliffy
I agree, the Supreme Court would very likely strike down any Act of Congress either reducing *or * increasing the number of justices beyond what was reasonable (although I’d gladly become one of the 290 million justices on the New 'n Improved Super-Gargantuan Supreme Court).
As to a minimum size… Although Art. III doesn’t say how big the Supreme Court has to be, Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2 states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…*Judges * of the supreme Court…(emphasis added).” So the Framers clearly intended that the Supreme Court have, at the very least, two members - and, since quite a few of those at the Constitutional Convention ended up in the First Congress which set the number at six, it’s obvious they had in mind something like the British high courts (or the multi-judge colonial and, later, state supreme courts) of the day.
You know, I think the Supreme Court justices are overworked, so maybe if there was some plan to appoint another justice for each one that was over the age of 70, that may relieve the pressure on the Supreme Court.
[ducks]
BobT, I think that’s a horrible, horrible idea. (Well, at least until a progressive Democrat is back in office – you know, someone like FDR.)
William, the use of “Judges” is consonant with a single-judge court so long as the one judge isn’t immortal. Anyway, it’s not a subject worth much analysis, because out of all the crazy things that can happen, this ain’t one of 'em.
–Cliffy
It was a bad idea when FDR tried to do it, and it’s a bad idea now. Nine’s a good number.
Whoosh! 
–Cliffy
“What If… the Liberal-Leaning Justices Had the Powers of the Fantastic Four?”
Action-packed with the latest in left-leaning letigiousness, and legerdemain! Excelsior, true believers!
What If…Doctor Doom was named as Chief Justice???
At least there’d be no more talk about Rehnquist being the worst Chief.
I wasn’t aware that there was talk about Rehnquist being the “worst” Chief. Was this over on MoveOn.org?
They kind of have this on the appellate and district benches. They have the position of Senior Judge. That allows a judge to go into semi retirement while still handling a few cases. Judges never have to fully step out of the picture but at the same time, the president appoints (presumably) younger judges who can handle larger caseloads. Someone more familiar with the federal bench than I can say whether retirement is mandatory.
There is nothng to stop them from creating Senior Justices for SCOTUS. The Chief Justice in that case would probably have the power to decide to include a Senior Justice to allow Associate Justices to work on other cases.
Naw, it was over in Great Debates.