Timely Thread: The #SupremeCourt is often misunderstood. Here's the deal, and it might come off as brash, but fairly hear it out. At its inception, it was created for a relatively singular purpose, which is to control and intercede...(1/15)

in differences between the Executive & Legislative branches. Since then, it has been, and will continue to be, used as a political tool.

For those any “originalists” (or anyone really) who may be outraged at first blush by this…let's go back to the #Constitution...(2/15)

Nowhere within the text does it say anything about the number of #justices whatsoever, hence leading to the reality in its history of being wielded as a political sword of sorts to the Executive Branch...(3/15)

To act like this isn’t the case, on both sides, is just naïve and unrealistic, despite how much we ALL wish it weren’t the case...it is. That’s the nature of the beast, #bias, and us as humans...(4/15)

Example, for the first 100 years the number ebbed and flowed from 5 at certain points, to 10 under Lincoln, and many in between. Even numbers…odd numbers…it has seen it all...(5/15) #supremecourthearing

Now, it's true that since 1869 there have been 9 justices, which is ONLY because nobody changed it, but it CAN have any number. And I respect the framers enough to have purposefully not set a number to it. That was not an oversight in their thoughtfulness...(6/15)

Here's the thing, and point of it, #Congress should do its best to represent the American public, not disproportionately. Think about it, we’ve had 9 justices since a time when there were ONLY 36 states, ~70 senators, ~220 Congress members, and a population of 39 million...(7/15)

Perhaps adding to the #SupremeCourt, or even subtracting from it, might be the RIGHT thing to do. Surprise, we are different country since then. If we need to increase or decrease, there is a precedent for this...(8/15)

The choice to do so is what we look to #Congress for, for it’s their job to consider and answer! Precisely, how do we best represent our society?

I know we all celebrate an odd number (like it’s some Constitutional dictate), but that is not at all the case...(9/15)

In fact, it should probably be an EVEN number in order to lessen its partisan nature in decision-making for one party or value system.

Furthermore to this point, the #SupremeCourt decides what they do and don’t listen to...(10/15)

Think about it, with an even number you would be less likely to have a #partisan group (on either side of the aisle) even bring up certain cases because if it’s an even split, the court punts, and probably likely doesn't hear it anyways...(11/15)

Lastly, again, if any administration legitimately decides the #SupremeCourt does not FAIRLY match the makeup of the country (which it doesn’t now, hasn’t, and frankly, and personally, we should probably many more justices), then so be it...(12/15)

One last thing, NOTHING says you HAVE to fill a seat upon death or retirement of a justice. I think this is an interesting point we don’t talk about. We don’t need to fill the seat, despite what many people think...(13/15) #supremecourthearing

This is a way it went up and down in the past. Again, nothing in the #Constitution dictates that we have a specific number...(14/15) #Constitutionalist

Anyways, I did want to be fair, #bipartisan in this thread and these are just some nuanced aspects that I’m shocked none of our Representatives have brought up and aren't really well known...

Thanks for coming to this Twitter TED Talk Thread. (15/15, end) #supremecourthearing