Comments on: The Supreme Court docket’s shrinking, are ‘activist’ witch-hunts to blame?

By: matthew dennis

matthew dennis — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:21:34 +0000

While it’s true that the sitting justices on the SCOTUS aren’t likely to be worried by the activist label, circuit court judges are, and that may have some impact on their decisions. Could that impact the eventual pool of petitioners to the SCOTUS? Another question: Are there more per se petitions now than there were twenty years ago?

By: Kate Klonick

Kate Klonick — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:50:40 +0000

I think you have good points all except your last — that we’re not getting our money’s worth. Associate Justices make $208K a year and Roberts, as Chief Justice, makes $217,000. That’s not peanuts, but it’s a pittance next to what they could be making in the private sector (at least 10x that). I’d say we get pretty good bang for our buck out of SCOTUS.

By: markbolton

markbolton — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:10:06 +0000

As the shrinking docket seems to have begun when Rehnquist took the helm, maybe his drug addiction lasted longer than we thought, making him unable to stand up to what was previously considered a normal workload. Perhaps the other Justices just went along with this and the reduced workload simply became the new norm over time.
In any case, it makes sense for conservatives to support taking fewer cases – they think the Court serves no purpose anyway. For liberals, however, it seems to show a lack of commitment to ideals, unlike say a Brennan. This sad state can also be seen among “liberal” legislators these days, all too willing to go along and get along and afraid to rock the boat.
Whatever the reason, we are not getting our money’s worth from our leaders these days.