>>2000981 (lb)

By enlarging it, does this mean you want the SC to become more like the legislature? We already have that. It's called the legislative branch.

So, what is the argument against case law/precedent again in favor of the reasoning of somehow just being able to "interpret it?"

Can you strictly interpret the 8th Amendment? What is the framework for strictly interpreting "cruel and unusual punishment?"

>>2000846

"Don't tread on me" is not a valid legal argument.

>>2000792

Yes, and law schools will teach about Scalia and Gorsuch's case law, not simply "how to interpret the Constitution."

>>2001099

This is not a pure democracy, never was, never was intended to be.

>>2001237

Without Marbury, I don't see what the role of courts would be. The would resolve disputes between persons, between persons and the govt, and between govts. Resolving those disputes would naturally involve interpreting and ruling on the opposing parties interpretation of the law, i.e. Judicial review.

I know it when I see it? that's some hardcore objective constructivism there.

You mean like a larger judiciary not being corruptible like the congress? Term limits don't necessarily abolish the risk of corruption or blackmail.

Here is one good reason for not enlarging the SC. There are majority opinions, dissenting, and concurring opinions as well. I'd rather not read 75 majority and concurring opinions to understand the framework of the law. This is why we have a legislature, people debating the proposed law and voting for it. We don't need another one.