Isn't that why the constitution provides for <Nine> justices, though? ;) Is it not odd(?) that USA appoints people with no ideas ever expressed,[1] over peoplel like Posner who actually have something important to say? The purpose of having Nine is to allow for differences of opinion on minor things (in the scheme of Statesmanship), while having the best and the brightest contibute unique expertise.
Ms. Kagan’s responses, during a long and sometimes tense day of parrying with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were similar to those of Supreme Court nominees past. But unlike her predecessors, Ms. Kagan wrote a 1995 article calling for judicial nominees to be more forthcoming. On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might “provide some kind of hints” about her views on matters of legal controversy.
Isn't that why the constitution provides for <Nine> justices, though?
The number of justices on SCOTUS isn't set by the Constitution, it's set by Congress. Throughout history there have been as many as 10 and as few as 5 justices.
Is it not odd(?) that USA appoints people with no ideas ever expressed, over peoplel like Posner who actually have something important to say?
_______________
Notes:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/us/30kagan.html
Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions
Ms. Kagan’s responses, during a long and sometimes tense day of parrying with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were similar to those of Supreme Court nominees past. But unlike her predecessors, Ms. Kagan wrote a 1995 article calling for judicial nominees to be more forthcoming. On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might “provide some kind of hints” about her views on matters of legal controversy.