Should SCOTUS be a larger nonpartisan court?

BOX SCORE: A Grand Supreme Court
Should SCOTUS be a larger nonpartisan court?

Puzzle Summary:

POLI the AI, asks, "Where can we agree?" Grand juries frequently have 23 jurors and SCOTUS has just nine jurists. The US population is 130x that of 1776. SCOTUS's approval rating is now 40%. SCOTUS has become a "deck to stack" and not the required impartial check and balance of the legislative and executive branches of government.

What if SCOTUS went up to 18 or 23 jurists with evenly staggered term limits of 18 years ending in off-election years, maintain a justices-in-waiting pool of 8 selected by at least 2/3rds of a large balanced nonpartisan independent council (NIC) in the executive branch assisted by AI, 60 Senate votes to confirm a candidate, 67 votes to override a presidential veto, cycle through candidates, if no one is confirmed by a deadline then the selection will be by lottery of the pool members?

ONE PARROT rules that SCOTUS should be as it always has been. THE OTHER PARROT objects that the court has become a game of capture the flag,  and decades on the bench loses touch with the people. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?


BOX SCORE for Enlarging a Nonpartisan SCOTUS
:Weighted-Average: Forecast:

:71%: ± 6% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4

Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 11/16
Columns of Bias 6/8



Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Enlarging a Nonpartisan Supreme Court

Justice should be blind
Seven ways to interpret the Constitution
Constitution requires pragmatic interpretation
SCOTUS still punishes the poor

Top Four Key Reasons Against Enlarging a Nonpartisan Supreme Court

A “republic” biased SCOTUS is needed
A minority should define life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Lifetime appointments protect against politics
The Constitution is a text cast in stone

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor

Planet First Democrats & Major Builders
Underrepresented & Realty
Unions & Managerial
Shopkeepers & E-Retail

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against

Activists & Gun Owners
Federal Payroll & Entrepreneurs
Digital Republicans & The Free Press
Mayors and County Officials & Governors

Four A-hah Moments

(Yes) Judges’ lifespans doubled since 1776
(Yes) More justices could hear more cases

(No) Capturing SCOTUS is an imperative
(No) A fair AI assisted process is still flawed


Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion

We predict an 71% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Enlarging a Nonpartisan Supreme Court with an average error margin of  ± 6%. Thrift (T) types will see less societal wasted time and effort from odd decisions by a too small court. Abundance (A) types will see a fairer court for more people. Commerce (C) types will see a better balance of business interests represented by a larger pool. Governance (G) types will see less decisions made to benefit the few instead of the many.  

:: :: :: :: 

You can play this week’s game at

Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.

A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.

Finding out Where We Can Agree? takes Guts ::

Posted 8 months ago
National Politics Ethics & Values BOX SCORES


No comments yet! Why don't you be the first?
Add a comment