Upon further reflection, I think you are confusing what is a normal comparison between the House and the Senate with an odd comparison between Congress and the SCOTUS.
I really don’t understand how you interpreted my comments to mean “we live in an oligarchy.” The Constitution sets up three branches of government and defines the responsibilities of each. It isn’t that nine Supreme Court justices have power, it’s that the judicial system has power. Would you be more comfortable if the Supreme Court had 535 justices instead of nine, or the office of the President was filled by 535 individuals instead of one, just to make the numbers even with Congress?
I was confused. But my main point is how strange it is that in a country with all different types of people, with different points of view, and one that prides itself on its “melting pot” moniker, we still trust the interpretation of the laws to nine people. It would make more sense to me if more people were on the SCOTUS and less in Congress. I mean, anybody and their mother could think of a law. But the interpretation is what gives a law its power. Wouldn’t you want the most perspective and context possible when deciding upon the breadth and scope of a given law?
When I hear talk about Congress making laws, I think to myself, kids make laws for tree forts. Deciding whether a law is worth writing is a moral judgment. Is this law a good idea or bad idea? People tend to share a general moral compass; e.g. allowing criminals to have guns is bad, children should not be abused, everyone should have an opportunity to succeed in this country. However, these great intentions invariably lead to a nebulous proclamation in the best of cases. It takes a group of talented individuals to decide appropriate limits and powers of this proclamation. Laws passed by Congress don’t become a thoroughly thought through, fair law in the same way that ideas put on paper don’t become an essay. Not without interpretation.
Please tell me what I’m missing. Again, I’m a political newcomer, just trying to fill the gaps in my knowledge.
Dave
pianodave: I think the key thing you’re missing is…there is no perfect answer. People are flawed and stupid and greedy and corrupt.
The genius of Parliamentary Government is that it empowers the Opposition, so that laws are debated, contested, re-written, amended, and subject to compromise. This reduces the chance of the passing of bad laws, although it does not eliminate it.
That’s because nothing, ever, can eliminate it. Bad laws will get passed.
The genius of the American system is that it has three separate powers in opposition, thus providing the additional stability of a tripod. For the system to break down, one of the branches would have to accumulate more power than the other two combined. That’s unlikely…but not impossible.
(The old Soviet system was also three-fold, and relatively stable. The KGB, the Communist Party, and the Army. It was once described as two Pygmies, each with a leash…holding a crocodile. Each Pygmy delighted in letting the Crocodile threaten the other…but knew never to allow it to devour the other, for he, then, would surely be next.)
If there were more people on the Supreme Court, there would be more factionalism, not less. Instead of the informal alliances of the “liberal” justices and the “conservative” justices, there would be formal parties, with periodic votes for party leader, just as in the House and Senate. You wouldn’t eliminate deal-making: you’d enshrine it!
Thank you Trinopus! I think I’m starting to understand now. But when you say there’d be more factionalism with more people on the Supreme Court, how do you know? You say people are flawed and corrupt, but I’d assert that to rise to such a coveted position you would have to have a strong sense of decency. To be entrusted with the task of interpreting our laws, wouldn’t you have to be above petty deal-making and the like? Plus, with its insular nature, it seems like the perfect environment for a kind of “mini-Congress”. Not nearly as many people as the real Congress, but enough so that everyone in America feels that he or she has a voice.
Or is this just a fantasy of mine that could never work in reality?
Unfortunately, they’re not.
The kind of philosopher-kings you are talking about don’t exist in reality. So we can’t pick them for the Supreme Court. And making a committee bigger does not automatically improve it.
Regards,
Shodan
None of us are that kind of person, but we know what it is and how to emulate it. The symbolism that goes with the Court, the black robes and so forth, are not just club members’ mumbo-jumbo but are intended to reinforce their responsibilities to try to be as just and wise as they can. If some fall short, that is not the fault of the concept. And yes, the influence of those who do fall short can be diluted by adding more of those who understand and try harder.
With the current court, I think we can safely say that every Catholic who went to Yale or Harvard has a voice!! 
As do four of the five NYC boroughs. Trenton has two voices, although they’re usually in harmony.
Oh my God! Have you ever lived in the US or paid attention to American politics? “Decency”??? :smack:
In case you’re not joking, NO. Politicians, by virtue of the career they have chosen and the things it takes to succeed at it, are devious, lying, manipulative, and immoral people. 100% of them after, say, the first six months of their career, because I’m sure a few decent people try it out before deciding it isn’t for them.
One thing I think you’re overlooking (I won’t say missing) is that the Supreme Court is the apex of the entire judicial system, not the judicial system itself.
There are 94 federal district courts, which are overseen by 12 federal appelate courts which, in turn, are overseen by a Supreme Court. In addition there are specialized courts that deal with international trade, bankruptcy, veterans claims against the government, military cases, tax law, and probably other specialties I’m not mentioning.
While it’s true the Supreme Court has ultimate jurisdiction, it’s also true that cases don’t make it as far as the Supreme Court until they have been tried and appealed and a consensus has not been reached in the lower courts.
Unfortunately, I have to refer you to the office of the President, the public official who is subject to the vote of ALL the people. You would think the cross-country campaigning and state-by-state electoral process would work to eliminate the unqualified or evil candidates, but history shows we have elected our fair share of them.
Keep in mind too that the Supreme Court is only the final word as to interpretation of the Constitution. If the Court interprets a federal statute in a way that Congress dislikes, Congress has the option of enacting the statute again in some amended way that effectively overturns the Court’s ruling.
And even as to Constitutional rulings, the Court is technically not final. It is rare and very difficult, but the public at large retains the right to amend the Constitution.
But is a judge a politician? I’ve heard of corrupt judges of course, but you would think a judge would be held to a higher standard than your average, garden-variety congressman or senator. I guess I’m wrong. I can understand politicians see power and wealth in politics, but if someone wants to be a judge, at the start at least they must have some firm moral and ethical compass.
Have no politicians ever, anywhere, succeeded in doing anything good for anyone other than themselves? Really?
No, this is a terribly naive view. DrCube takes it way too far, but being brilliant, skilled and charismatic unfortunately doesn’t automatically = high moral character. Those traits are all completely divorced from one another. Never make the mistake that someone in power must be a good person or that someone of lowly status must be bad.
If anything the ego usually required to successfully navigate yourself to the top of any given heap probably tends to select slightly more for bad characters than good. The idea that power always corrupts is over-broad, but it does contain a kernel of truth. It can corrupt and quite easily.
Practical experience, just to start with. I’ve served on committees of various sizes. A five-person committee can think holistically; the five can come to a unanimous consensus, quite easily, actually.
A twelve-person committee (like a jury) needs to do a lot of talking before it can come to a unanimous decision. And it doesn’t always succeed in doing so. At the end of the day, there’s usually one guy who still isn’t quite happy with what he’s had to agree to.
A thirty-person committee breaks down almost immediately into factions. Usually, someone is wise enough to call for a preliminary vote, and the outlines are obvious to see. Such a committee is often broken up into subcommittees, each assigned a small part of the overall problem.
A one-hundred-person committee really needs to elected a “governing board” to represent its members. It’s too large to accomplish anything. This is why we have a very powerful Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader. They’re the “government of the government.” One hundred people cannot function as a homegeneous mass. They can’t even make themselves heard!
Only three, I think. I don’t think there’s anybody from Queens or Staten Island.
Scalia grew up in Queens. This is a pretty good summary from the NY Times.