Definition of Number of Justices

[Gulliver]

I apologize for being so incredibly late in staring this end set of polls. Got busy during the start of the week, and then got sick towards the end >_< In any case let's finally finish this up.

This poll is about the question of whether the number of justices should be constitutionally defined or set by law.

• 1. Constitutionally defined: the number of justices on the Court is defined in the Constitution;
• 2. Defined by law: the number of justices on the Court is set by law;
• 3. Defined by law with constitutional minimum: The number of justices may be set by law, but there is a minimum number defined in the constitution;
• 4. Other: Something not listed here, please specify.

You may vote for up to 3 options.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I would recommend that the Constitution provide for a Chief Justice, and no fewer than two Associate Justices. That would leave room for experimentation, and keep the current size of the Court as a minimum.

 

[punk d]

At a minimum, a chief justice is needed. I also agree that 2 Associate justices are needed.

I'd also like to add more 'expeditious'-ness into the Constitution to speed up rulings. Feeder courts tend to exercises in futility - be nice to change that here.