On 5/12/2022 11:50 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

super70s@super70s.invalid wrote:

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Studies have also shown that a 12-person criminal or civil jury is more >>>>>> deliberative and thoughtful than a 6-person jury.

The number of jurors is in no way analogous to the number of judges on >>>>> an appellate court.

I was just making the point that both of the bodies deliberate among
themselves before making a final decision.

super70s fails to understand
that a political appointee reflects the president's point of view

Not always, ask some of those justices who helped decide Roe v. Wade
(if they were still alive).

and is never representative of any group of Americans despite
appearance.

Since they're making decisions that affect all Americans they should be >>>> representative of America as a whole.

Courts are not representative bodies in the first place.

Ain't that the truth, it took until 1981 to get a female on the court,
1967 to get a Black on the court, and 2022 to get a Black female on the
court. Pretty embarrassing for a country that likes to present itself as
a shrine of freedom and equality around the world.

Pendantry noted.

And "where does it stop -- 200-300 justices?" is just a silly argument. >>>

Only because it highlights the ridiculousness of your own.

According to your criteria, we'd need a minimum of 50 justices on the
Court just to be representative of all America's 50 states.

I didn't say or imply that at all, jackass.

That's exactly what you suggested.

Forgive Ubiquitous. His notion of 'exactly' is... umm... inexact.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)