- #1
Panel of judges in Supreme Court - Odd number?
- Thread starter akerkarprashant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Judge
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the composition of the Supreme Court panel of judges, specifically whether it is always an odd number to prevent tie votes. Participants explore the implications of this structure, historical context, and constitutional considerations.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Historical
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants propose that the Supreme Court panel is always an odd number (3, 5, 7) to avoid tie votes.
- Others argue that while the intent may be to prevent ties, situations can arise where a judge recuses themselves, potentially leading to a tie.
- One participant notes that there is no constitutional requirement for the number of justices, suggesting that it could change through legislation.
- Another participant mentions the "good behavior" clause as a basis for lifetime appointments, but acknowledges that this could also be altered without a constitutional amendment.
- A historical note is made that the Supreme Court has had even numbers in the past, specifically 6 and 10 justices.
- A humorous remark is made about a fictional method for resolving ties, indicating a light-hearted tone in parts of the discussion.
- One participant expresses admiration for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, adding a personal perspective to the discussion.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the odd number of justices is a strict requirement or merely a historical trend. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the implications of the number of justices and the potential for ties.
Contextual Notes
There are limitations regarding the assumptions about the necessity of an odd number of justices and the implications of recusal on voting outcomes. The discussion also touches on the historical context of the Supreme Court's composition without resolving the implications of these historical changes.
- #2
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 22,524
- 7,497
That appears to be the intent. Of course, the situation may be complicated of one judge recuses themself based on a conflict; for example, in a potential 5:4 split, one of the 5 recuses themself.akerkarprashant said:
- #3
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 35,005
- 21,707
Did you do any research on this? Any at all?akerkarprashant said:
There was a tie as recently as 202-, and several in 2015.
- #4
collinsmark
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 3,444
- 3,506
akerkarprashant said:
There's nothing in the US constitution which stipulates the number of Supreme Court Justices. Nor is there anything which stipulates their length of stay.
Yes, it seems that the number of justices has been an odd number to avert ties, but it doesn't have to be that way. Legislation can change that.
The lifetime appointments are in place, presumably to avoid partisan judges/justices. But that can also be changed without requiring a constitutional amendment, since the constitution doesn't stipulate anything about that.
Last edited:
- #5
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 35,005
- 21,707
collinsmark said:
People have argued that the "good behavior" clause is the basis of lifetie appointments.
In my previous message, I meant 2016.
- #6
JT Smith
- 499
- 669
It started out as an even number: 6. At a later time it was 10.
You could have looked that up in less than two minutes.
If there is a tie the Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice and one of the members who voted opposite have either a pistol duel or a naked wrestling match to settle the issue.
You could have looked that up in less than two minutes.
If there is a tie the Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice and one of the members who voted opposite have either a pistol duel or a naked wrestling match to settle the issue.
- #7
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 35,005
- 21,707
My money is on William Howard Taft.JT Smith said:
Last edited:
- #8
StevieTNZ
- 1,944
- 837
Can I just say how much I absolutely LOVE Sonia Sotomayor!
