STRANGE BEDFELLOW WEDNESDAY: Which odd couples are shockingly for or against making SCOTUS a Grand Supreme Court? Do you feel like ‘us people’ are being mooned by the Supreme Court? Shh, not so loud. Political parrots don’t listen. How will our Grand Supreme Court solution rank on the US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL)? We’re just looking for some SCOTUS-SHH.

There’s a myth that Americans can’t agree on any public policy solutions and that every problem is intractable. All Americans, well maybe not political parrots, are frequently conflicted about their views on freedom, laws, and spending or saving. No one has time to understand every solution to every problem all the time. We’re here to help sort it all out.

Spoiler Alert

Before reading on, you might want to role-play this week’s puzzle at PolicyKeys.com. 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 the Tuesday BOX SCORE for this week’s puzzle here.

This week’s puzzle: 

Should SCOTUS convert to a painstakingly nonpartisan larger independent model?

In Favor

The historical underpinnings of our Supreme Court, while noble and revered, is as a product of a different time. With the rapid expansion of our country’s population and its legal and social complexities, the present nine-member configuration of the Court increasingly seems insufficient.

Expanding the Supreme Court to eighteen or twenty-three justices would allow for a broader representation of legal thought and a greater capacity to handle the scope of our nation’s complexities. This augmentation would dilute the impact of each individual appointment, thereby reducing the potential for radical shifts in legal interpretations.

Further, it would increase the chance of achieving near consensus through a more diversified Court, ideally leading to long-term stability. Considering the Constitution does not mandate a fixed number of justices, this expansion aligns with its flexible spirit. It is geared towards meeting the demands of our present socio-legal reality. 


However, there are compelling reasons against such an expansion. Doubling the size of the Supreme Court risks politicizing the judiciary branch to the extent that could jeopardize its integrity. Suppose the Court’s size becomes a regular subject for legislative alteration. In that case, it could be used as a tool for political gain.

Each new administration could adjust the Court’s size to ensure a majority alignment with its political philosophy. This would undermine the Court’s independence and its intended function as a counterbalance to legislative and executive power.

Furthermore, a more significant Court may dilute the individual weight of each Justice’s opinion, complicating the decision-making process and potentially leading to lengthier deliberations and a slower justice system. Lastly, precedent matters in constitutional law, and a departure from the longstanding tradition of nine justices could shake public confidence in the institution

Politics Make Strange Bedfellows

First, here are some politically strange bedfellows, those odd couples who POLI the AI and we predict would support having a larger nonpartisan Supreme Court of the United States.

Four Odd Couples IN-FAVOR

Planet First Democrats & Major Builders

Planet First Democrats value environmental sustainability. They could support a larger, nonpartisan Supreme Court, hoping that justices prioritize environmental justice. Using the NIC (Nonpartisan Independent Council) ensures vetted, green-aware legal minds. This Court could prioritize cases that affect poor communities due to environmental concerns.

Major Builders might see advantages in this proposal. A flexible Court interpretation supports growth without harming environmental rules. Regular judge rotation ensures a bench attuned to the construction industry’s needs. AI analysis could spotlight justices that balance environmental and economic concerns.

Exporters & Importers

Exporters, favoring a weaker dollar, might like a larger, nonpartisan Supreme Court. Such a Court could understand international trade’s intricacies. Regular judge rotation keeps them updated on global trends. AI analysis helps understand their economic perspectives.

Importers, benefiting from a stronger dollar, might also back this proposal. They’d want justices aware of import business significance. Fair treatment, especially for smaller entities, would be a draw. A larger bench could handle more trade cases, avoiding backlog.

Both groups, despite differing currency views, could unite over this Court proposal. It offers a balanced economic environment catering to both sectors.

Rural Part Time & Urban Professionals

Rural Part-Time Workers, facing disparities, might welcome a bigger, neutral Supreme Court. They’d hope for a Court reflecting their unique experiences. The NIC could provide justices attuned to rural work realities.

Urban Professionals, with their hectic lives, could see the benefits. They’d want a Court managing cases quickly. AI use in decisions shows modernity, and they’d favor a Court updated on urban legal issues.

Both groups, despite different challenges, could find common ground in a court that isn’t dominated by large corporations and rich individuals. A Court that understands all Americans’ diverse needs might unite them in support.

Local Chains & E-Platforms

Local Chains, wary of e-monopolies, might see the expanded Court as protection. They’d hope for a bench that understands market pitfalls and prioritizes small businesses.

E-Platforms, and digital commerce leaders, might also support this Court. Recognizing the digital market’s evolution, they’d want justices attuned to online commerce challenges. The NIC and AI analysis suggest modern-thinking vetting.

Both entities, while distinct, could value this larger Court. Balancing market competition and recognizing each group’s contribution might draw mutual endorsement.

Four Odd Couples AGAINST

Free Press & Republican Leadership

The Free Press could worry that expanding the Supreme Court might increase legal continuity. New justices might bring stability to rulings. The Press might push back against AI’s superior role in pattern detection as a competitor to their editorial policy. Controversial SCOTUS changes drive profits for the press.

The Republican Leadership might resist the expansion, fearing a loss of conservative balance. They could oppose term limits, preferring lifetime appointments to guard the Court’s independence.

Both entities might join forces opposing a larger Court, concerned about politicization, controversies, and fairness threats. This hints at the value of trying to pre-wire the court’s ideological makeup.

Mayors/County Officials & Governors

Mayors and County Officials could see a bigger Court as detached from local governance. Frequent justice changes might disrupt local legal precedent. They might prefer local courts deciding local matters.

Governors might want the Court to maintain republic principles. They’d be wary of Supreme Court overreach into state matters. Term limits might be seen as a threat to judicial continuity.

Both governance levels might converge against Court expansion. They’d emphasize the Court’s potential detachment, overreach risks, and continuity loss, showcasing the complexity of modernizing SCOTUS.

Federal Payroll & Taker States

Federal employees might dislike the potential for the expansion of term limits. They might also critique a larger SCOTUS could lead to increased complexity in federal legal decisions

The Taker States could see the expansion as a threat to their preferred status for earmarks. They’d worry about the court jeopardizing their political favoritism in the Executive and Legislative branches.

Both groups might unite against a larger Supreme Court, seeing it as risky and overly complicated. Their mutual concerns emphasize the need to evaluate such changes for their broad impacts.

Rural Full Time & Landlords

Rural full-time workers might distrust a bigger Supreme Court. They’d fear a lack of representation and consistent rulings. Stability and continuity in law would be crucial for them.

Landlords might be anxious about fluctuating property rulings due to justice changes. A potentially tenant-favoring Court concerns them.

Both groups could oppose a larger Supreme Court, stressing over legal uncertainty and potential biases. Their combined reservations spotlight the far-reaching consequences an expanded Court could introduce.

Odd Couple Conclusions

If you listen to mainstream media, the only games in town are the conservatives against the liberals, the Democrats against the Republicans, the haves and the have-nots, and values versus beliefs. This is a gross oversimplification. 

When we look at politics not as identity-based and instead by the various roles we all play in our society, we agree on much more than the political parrots would have us believe. 

By the Numbers

We predict a 71% ±4, strong 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.


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. Where Can We Agree? Why don’t you want to know? You can play this week’s puzzle at PolicyKeys.com.

*Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative


Where Can We Agree? (Why Don’t You Want To Know?) is our anthem.

You can play this week’s puzzle at PolicyKeys.com.


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


Fly Higher

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 [::]



, ,