SCOTUS’ Political DNA

Independents now outnumber members of either the red or blue political parties, and they’re repulsed by serial court packing. Welcome to Saturday’s Political DNA Report. This article concludes our week-long series on upsizing SCOTUS to a Grand Supreme Court. Scroll to the bottom for a brief explanation of Politics 4.0’s Political DNA.

Proposed Solution Overview:
A Grand Supreme Court

Expand the Supreme Court from nine to either eighteen or twenty-three justices, akin to a grand jury. Implement 18-year staggered term limits with new appointments every odd-numbered, non-election year. An independent nonpartisan commission (NIC) maintains a pool of eight standby justices. The President selects one for Senate confirmation. If Congress and the President delay, a lottery system selects one from the pool.

Spoiler Alert

Before reading, you might want to role-play this week’s puzzle at Our Monday article introduces the idea of a larger nonpartisan SCOTUS to include a deep dive into the key YES and NO reasons. You can see Tuesday’s BOX SCORE for this week’s puzzle here. Wednesdays, you’ll be scandalized by this week’s Politically Strange Bedfellows. On Thursdays, we listen for the signal from all the Noisy Guests who are seriously conflicted by all the roles arguing in their heads. On Fridays, your Political Digital Twin becomes your Personal Public Policy Whisperer.

This week’s puzzle: 

Should SCOTUS convert to a painstakingly nonpartisan larger independent model?

So, what does our shared political DNA say?


Abundance is more than just material wealth and includes resources, intellectual depth, and a generosity of spirit. The following reasons capture why SCOTUS should become a larger nonpartisan entity. 

A1. Broader Representation: A larger court encompasses a greater range of perspectives, leading to more balanced and inclusive decisions.

A2. Thoughtful Analysis: More justices ensure a deeper examination of legal matters. In-depth discussions highlight crucial details, resulting in more informed rulings.

A3. Equity for All: A larger bench ensures even the less privileged get their concerns addressed. Every citizen’s voice is vital.

A4. Future Thinking: Adding more justices is a step towards continual growth and improvement. Evolution is at the heart of abundance.


Thrift’s not just spending less but also resource management, risk mitigation, and the principle of doing more with less. The following reasons highlight why SCOTUS should become a larger nonpartisan entity. 

T1. Efficient Use of Resources: More justices allow for a better distribution of tasks, resulting in quicker and smoother decisions.

T2. Stability: A larger panel reduces extreme viewpoints. This ensures more consistent and predictable outcomes.

T3. Reputation Capital: Keeping politics out safeguards the court’s esteemed status for future generations.

T4. Steady Growth: Gradual changes in the roster modernize the court, refining its functionality without flip-flopping fallout.


Commerce covers not only the private sector but also asynchronous decision-making (decisions not made simultaneously but at different times by different people), competition, and innovation. The following reasons illustrate why SCOTUS should become a larger nonpartisan entity.

C1. Market Dynamism: A larger court brings more perspectives, mirroring the innovation of free markets through vibrant competition of ideas.

C2. Agility: Rotating justices ensures the court remains attuned to contemporary commercial shifts, allowing for timely and relevant decisions.

C3. Growth Mindset: Appointing more justices fertilizes fresh thinking, unleashing entrepreneurial spirit.

C4. Meritocracy: Selection based on legal skill over ideology incentivizes justices to make persuasive, market-savvy arguments. May the best ideas win.


Governance is not only public sector activity but also synchronous decision-making, liberty, and justice for all. So, several compelling reasons arise why SCOTUS should become a larger nonpartisan entity.

G1. Democratic Representation: Expanding the court promotes equal representation and participative decision-making, foundational to true democracy.

G2. Deliberate Compromise: Incremental bipartisan reform demonstrates a commitment to institutional stability over partisan gain.

G3. Civic Responsibility: Justices should balance personal ambitions with their overarching duty to the nation, ensuring public trust remains intact.

G4. Considered Judgement: Sudden shifts can have unforeseen repercussions. Deliberate collaboration and consensus-building reinforce the principles of our democratic-republic.

By the Numbers

We predict a 71% ±4strong super-majority of roles in this country, including a majority on each of the four sides of the political table, in favor of Upsizing SCOTUS to a Grand Supreme Court, which makes it a US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) worthy solution.

Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 32%, the media’s 27%, and the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%, with many above 80%—Politics 4.0 is already 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.

What’s Our Shared Political DNA?

Politics 4.0 is based on this ground truth,

“There’s a time to save and a time to spend,
a time for freedom and a time for laws
—Where can we agree?”

This yields four primary conditions: Abundance v Thrift and Commerce v Governance. Poetically, their abbreviation is ACGT, just like human DNA.

Until really learning about a particular topic and making up their own minds, most people have a mix of opinions from all these points of view.

Abundance/Governance AG (National Government and NGOs)
Abundance/Commerce AC (Big Tech and New Businesses)
Thrift/Governance TG (Local Governments and Consumers), and Thrift/Commerce TC (Established Supply Chains and Jobs).

Each base pair, AG, AC, TG, and TC has a bias for change and a bias for the status quo. This yields eight Information Walls for us to draw from.


We conducted an in-depth analysis of the “Grand Supreme Court” concept, considering over 4,000 variables. With the assistance of POLI the AI, we examined sixteen primary YES reasons and sixteen primary NO reasons against the proposal.

Then, AI evaluation considers each societal role’s loose ties to beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. Finally, the AI looks at close ties to other roles as an internal reliability filter, which gives an error margin noted on the POL-ICYMI Answer Key.

After determining all 128 roles’ general bias towards change or maintaining the status quo, our editorial team reviews and, if necessary, adjust the forecasts for specific reasons. These adjustments have been falling within the error margin. This rigorous process aims to produce a credible, non-partisan assessment. Our goal? To genuinely capture America’s consensus.

You can read more about PolicyKeys™ in the upcoming book, Politics 4.0: How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize America. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative consensus-building approach.

The Weekly Puzzle

A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree?® Puzzle drops every Monday at 7 a.m. Eastern at

PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? is a real-life role-playing game. Each week, there are sixteen sets of eight ‘rival’ roles. Sit awhile in each of their eight chairs and predict whether a majority of people in those roles would say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the week’s question.

POLI* the AI and our Editors parse through over 4000 variables—so you don’t have to. The best ideas land on the US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) if a majority of each of the four sides of the political table agree. You can play this week’s puzzle at *Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative

Discussion Questions

After living with this puzzle for a considerable time, our solution begs many questions. Here are a few of them to stimulate conversations. 

If SCOTUS judges are term-limited, won’t they start pandering to industry to land a high-salaried job afterward?

Can an 85-year-old justice relate to the societal problems of those just coming of age?

How can a justice with less than ten years of practice possibly grasp the complexity of our entire legal system enough to be an arbiter?

How might a Justice be impartial when they can take expensive trips from those who can afford such things and have their family get special “relative” benefits to curry favor?

Both the Legislative and Executive branches frequently find the Supreme Court as a thorn in their side because of their seemingly politically biased solutions. Will a larger court help or hurt that?


Where Can We Agree? (Why Don’t You Want To Know?)

You can play this week’s puzzle at

Fly Higher

Independents, Democrats, and Republicans By the Numbers
Gallup Poll

Ethics Policies for Judges

Supreme Court Ethics Criticism

A Dim Future for SCOTUS Ethics

68% think SCOTUS is motivated by Politics not Law
Quinnipiac Poll

Why do Supreme Court Justices Have Lifetime Appointments?
Northwestern Global News

Supreme Court Approval Drops to All-Time Low
The Hill

An Argument Against Supreme Court Term Limits

Supreme Court Term Limits
Fix the Court

Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal as They Get Older

Eight Ways America’s Legal System Punishes the Poor
Equal Justice Under the Law

Operation Higher Court: The Religious Right’s Wining and Dining of Supreme Court Justices

18-Year Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices
American Academy of Arts & Sciences / Our Common Purpose

Insurance Industry Lobbying
Open Secrets

Supreme Court…Under Such Regulations as the Congress shall make

Accountable to None
Alliance for Justice

It takes guts to understand something from all four sides of the political table [::]



, ,