The only concern I've ever had with SCOTUS is their workload, or lack* thereof. As our nation has grown in size significantly since the 1950s, and more radical elements have taken hold, there are fewer justices to cover the extra work and so a lot of good, important, landmark-generating cases get rejected for consideration.

And let's face it, do you really believe RBG was actually doing any work the past several years or was it all her staff, who were not nominated and confirmed.

At the same time, however, given the nature of SCOTUS - they are appointed by an elected President and approved by the Senate, their word is essentially final on most things - it would be hard to add to their number or rotate in a cast of extras without disrupting the intent of the founders.

I can completely understand why people would want to add to the court for non-political bias reasons, but I also think it may not be worth the cost.

The only concern I've ever had with SCOTUS is their workload, or lake thereof. As our nation has grown in size significantly since the 1950s, and more radical elements have taken hold, there are fewer justices to cover the extra work and so a lot of good, important, landmark-generating cases get rejected for consideration.

And let's face it, do you really believe RBG was actually doing any work the past several years or was it all her staff, who were not nominated and confirmed.

At the same time, however, given the nature of SCOTUS - they are appointed by an elected President and approved by the Senate, their word is essentially final on most things - it would be hard to add to their number or rotate in a cast of extras without disrupting the intent of the founders.

I can completely understand why people would want to add to the court for non-political bias reasons, but I also think it may not be worth the cost.