Recently, retired securities lawyer and substack influencer, Robert Hubbell, repeated his call to expand the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). An armchair lawyer myself, Hubble’s comments usually prove insightful and convincing. However, his conclusion this time that the number of justices on the Supreme Court needs to be increased seems hyperbolical.
More Justices: Areas of Disagreement
My disagreement is not due to the decisions the Roberts court has adjudicated over the past twenty years. The Court’s decisions on Roe vs. Wade and Public Citizen provide two prime examples of their decisions eroding the public’s rights in favor of the moneyed elite. In addition, they gave legal immunity to Donald Trump and any future presidents. The list goes on and on, but you get the idea.
Indeed, Hubble noted in an earlier column, “The Case for Expanding the Supreme Court Never Has Been Stronger.” Very true. But, what size would be optimal? What if political conditions change and Democrats gain control of Congress and the White House? Should it be the thirteen that Jonathan Last recommends in the Bulwark? Or possibly 15 or 17 that other political observers have proposed?
On the contrary, Hubble declares such recommendations are too timid. Through an elaborate array of statistics, he demonstrates the country’s increase in population and the economy since its inception. Consequently,, Hubble advocates an increase to at least 21 or more Supreme Court justices. In his view, such an increase meets the legal demands that overtax the country’s legal system. And, it addresses the problem of court decisions held hostage by a reactionary, activist minority.
More Justices: Three Objections
1. Role of Economic Growth
In addressing Hubble’s proposal, my objections are several. First of all, court expansion based on economic growth based on an arbitrary starting point seems myopic at best. Given America’s exponential economic growth since its inception during the start of the Industrial Revolution, the Court would need hundreds of members to address business-based legal filings alone. That number omits all the personal, criminal, and governmental cases the federal court system handles every year.
2. Management Problems
Forty or 50 Supreme Court justices might seem fanciful, but the number does indicate the practical problem of managing such a bureaucracy. If the number of justices was to become too great, the Court would or could disintegrate into factions vying for their opinions ultimately to become law of the land. That seems to be the way the Court is working now. However, its constituents would resemble congressionals rather than jurists. Group politicking and/or log-rolling would become the order of the day. And legal decisions would be based on what would attract a majority opinion rather than strictly interpreting the law.
3. Would More Justices Eliminate the Problem?
Third, were the number of justices to expand to a more workable number, say the high teens or low to mid-20s, would this number be sufficient to eliminate the court-stuffing practices of recent years? Probably not. But, as Hubble observes, “amending the Constitution to impose term limits, staggered appointments, and other reforms that require an amendment begins to look like a more reasonable path forward.”
More Justices: Conclusion
It is at this point that Hubble advocates doing the hard work of demoncracy, i.e. by bring out the vote and implementing changes. Whatever those changes might be, they should be considered in advance of having the power to implement them.
History & Tradition
At this point, let’s not forget that the idea of America being a land of equaliatsy before the law was a fanciful notion reserved for philosophers like Plato and Voltaire. There were no templates, no nations from which to borrow ideas or see which techniques worked best. America was an experiement. Most nations, including Great Britain, expected the fledgling United States to collapse within a few years.
Conclusion: More Justices or More Justice?
Given all the time and events that have elapsed since then–250 years– isn’t it time our Constitution underwent some adjustments? The political history of the United Kingdom provides a millenium-long narrative of chipping away the powers of the king. My October 2025 post joined many other voices to show how the efforts of united groups of citizens can work to address some the flaws in the system. Or address some of the shortcomings that the evolution of our politics has created?
Rather than Last’s “ruthless aggression” or Hubble’s hostile legal takeover, now might be a good time to consider some positive, workable, even vicionary alternatives that appeal to the body politic in November and in 2028. In his fumbling, autocratic way, the Great Unifier (Donald Trump) has provided nsight to curb the worst flaws in our justice system. Conceiving a way to hold the justices accountable for their actions would be a good first step. Beyond that, a moderate Increase in the number of justices to create a factionless, workable body be a desirable followup?
What do you think? Let us know in the Comments section below:
This throw-in is one of the finalists in my best of William Fietzer newsletter competition. My bias may be showing, but how could anyone resist showing a photo of these two tricksters?
Interestingly, the first approach came from an alleged reading group came from a library in Glasgow, Scotland. The scammer said all the right things, how much he admired my book, 
Many people, myself included, first heard the concept of plausible deniability in association with right-wing political activist, 
Although the concept may have existed throughout human history as the Wikipedia entry claims, it never received formal recognition until Charles Babbage described it in his Ninth Bridgwater Treatise. There he depicted it as a deceitful but common political process whereby committee members could maintain deniability regarding sensitive or unethical decisions. It required “a few simply honest men” on a committee who could be conveniently, and temporarily, dismissed when a “peculiarly delicate question” arose. In that way, one of those absent members could “declare truly, if necessary, that he “never was present at any meeting at which even a questionable course had been proposed.”
This abstract concept lay dormant until 1948. Then, a series of National Security Council (NSC) papers defined “covert operations” committed in behalf of the U.S. government “are so planned and executed that … if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.” Later on In 1952, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA( Director 
Perhaps if the conceiver of the
That is what we have here. Originally, this blog post intended to deal with stressed individuals’ growing use of AI and Chatbots instead of human professionals for emotional and psychiatric treatment. (More on that below). However, in the process of developing that narrative, one thing became quite apparent. Despite my previous blog on the related topic of the
Yet, whatever the brilliance of Faukner’s Quentin Compson or King’s Carrie White characterizations, their fictional progenitor has to be 
The historical relevance of this literary correlation now seems more applicable. As in 17th-century Russia, the adoption of new ways of thinking and acting are seldom affable. In times of great cultural upheaval such as ours, adherence or reversion to the old ways is an inevitable expression of conscience for some. For others, it justifies the cruelty and persecution meted out to those who differ from themselves, whether culturally, ethnically, or intellectually.
These issues and more formed the basis of Culinary Institute of America food historian 
Prof. Forrest’s pre-dinner presentation provided an overview of the food items available to the average american’s palette. Sugar and salt were scare commodities at this time, so cooks emphasized the savory side through local herbs and animal fat. Sorghum, nuts, and berries formed the basis of most desserts.
Colonial Foodstuffs and the Columbian Exchange
Last Saturdaky, Journalism won the Preakness Stakes. Almost immediately, racing touts wondered whether he and Sovereignty, the Kentucky Derby winner, would have a rematch in the Belmont Stakes, the last leg of thoroughbred racing’s 
The treatament of horses in thoroughbred racing long has been subsumed under the rubric of animal welfare in this country.
Did you know the British poet 
Are there any perks associated with being a grandparent?At first glance, It seemed doubtful to this Baby Boomer. Oh sure, everybody says they welcome taking care of the grandkids in hopes of witnessing their first smiles. But as they grow up, those moments dwindle in significance compared to our expressions of relief when our babysitting obligaations are over.
Memories come in many forms and provoke a variety of emotions. As instanced above, not all of them need be sentimental or heart-warming. A recent study by researchers from the University of Buffalo and Kyoto University found that nostalgic people may be more inclined to strengthen and maintain long-term relationships than those who aren’t. The reason why: when people reminisce about the good times spent with loved ones, they appreciate them more and strive to maintain those relationships. According to study co-author Kuan Ju-Huang, this means that those positive attachments “may be more likely to last, even as our lives, interests, and responsibilities change.”
Perks of Grandparenting: Acquisition
Since the presidential inauguration, Trump 2.0 has proven as threatening and dangerous to our values and freedoms as he promised. Political pundits categorize it as a hostile takeover, government readjustment, or a coup. Whatever one calls it, the times are not a-changing for the better. Rather, they are provoking people’s flight-or-fight responses. In short, they evoke all the symptoms of W. H. Auden‘s 
Get Involved
These observations arise from the convictions of a confirmed Baby Boomer who experienced the divisiveness caused by the Viet Nam War. My rebelliousness then stemmed from my countercultural attitude toward the social mores of the political establishment. The irony is not lost on me that despite my convicitions remaining the same, I now must defend that culture’s values, constraints, and instituions. That’s how instutionally powerful conservative America has become over the past 60 years.
This tip elaborates on what appears above. Just as writers slant their stories to the values, interests, and expectations of their readerships, power panelists direct their responses toward the topic at hand with their audience in mind. Does it consist primarily of writers or academics? Or is it composed primarily of readers and fantasy fans?
For some panel members, this tip may contradict the concept of a panel discussion, i.e. a discussion among the members of a panel. Regardless of that, some of the best discussions I’ve witnessed resulted from questions or observations contributed by the audience. If a topic is provocative enough in itself, or if the panel discussion of it is sufficiently free-flowing and involving, such discussion conduces a dialog between the panel and its listeners. Not only does such involvement measure a power panelist and a panel’s success as entertainers, it liberates creative ideas panel members may never have considered.
This point may be in the convention guidelines, but it bears repeating. Power panelists respect the ideas and beliefs of all participants, panelists and audience members alike. To facilitate that respect, the moderator should lay out the ground rules before the start of discussion. Most often, that means reigning in those individuals whose enthusiasm for a particular topic overwhelms their inhibitions and consideration for others.
Like other film goers of the Boomer generation, I cut my movie-going teeth on adventure films like the Star Wars trilogy and (especially) Indiana Jones. Though they basically contain B-movie plots given A-list treatments, their over-the-top audacity and sheer enthusiasm made up for any shortcomings in probability or plot construction.
But is this “
Artificial Intelligence (AI) already affects writers and the publishing industry. However, the recent release of ChatGPT threatens authors’ livelihoods on a whole new level. In a 
itemizes the opportunities AI offers in terms of acquisitiion, production, and marketing. In his view, AI could depose Amazon, the over-charging, 800-pound gorilla in the publishing industry. While independent publishers like him might welcome the overthrow of their competition, individual entrepreneurs, writers, and artists could find themselves shoved further down down the publicity and marketing chain. McElroy’s analysis is astute, but relies heavily on his approach of book publishing being an information-dispensing industry.
As individuals, people respond to differIent stimuli differently. 
binder for my proposed work, Black Phantom. The binder remained empty for years, however, because I had no access to horses of any kind. Finally, when the chance to ride one did happen, I clung to the saddle horn for all I was worth while the horse galloped back to its stall for a fresh bucket of oats. However, the action, the adventure, the thrill of that incident stayed with me. Like Farley’s narrative of a boy’s enduring love for his horse, these qualities inspired the path I’ve chosen these many decades later.
For these individuals and the people inspired by them, “good enough” is not acceptable. Publishing information remains limited to the 
Melungeon–a particular yet ominous-sounding word which happens to rhyme with dungeon in English. Sometimes spelled malungeon or melongeon, the term has several meanings. The broadest of these, according to 
The reason for my interest in the appelation is two-fold. First, my father’s side of the family perpetuated the notion that our dark complections and brown eyes stemmed from our Cherokee heritage. Second, my research into the background of country-western singer 
In your reading, did you discover media you can trust? Do they cite their sources and check their facts? Or do such constraints seem to get in the way of a good story, convincing opinion, or solid argument?
Down the Rabbit Hole
OK. At this point, case closed. Or is it? One instance appears on the BBC News web page, the other on the web page of a “leading free market think tank.” Both sources for these links appear reliable, but consider the context in which these articles appear. The BBC is government-owned entity renowned for being “the world’s oldest newscaster” according to Wikipedia; MI or the Manhattan Institute, formerly the 
objective evaluation of the issue? My procedure: when in doubt in the 21st century, conduct a Google search. The first result of a “media bias” search turned up 
MBFC is only one of several sites devoted to information objectivity and bias-identification. Many media experts regard 
What Is the Rule of Three?
Examples
Expressions and Catchphrases: 
What It All Comes Down To
#1 
