1:05 min ... "331 million." ... population number ... wow. Lost for words ... 25 million people x 12, or 26 million people x 13 .... it's like the amount of the population of multiple countries put together ... I'm completely prejudice and biased, because I quite like Australia, and for the most part, how things are managed in Australia, and the scale. It is possible to see how an argument, viewed from the perspective of representation per overall population, could seem like an intuitively sensible basis for increasing the number of those serving on the Supreme Court. It could be easy, for example, to slip into thinking that, with seven, on the High Court of Australia, the amount proportional, roughly, for the population and representative, as if, for each state and a territory, or perhaps, a Justice for each day of the week, or a justice per 4 million people. Using that logic though, the Supreme Court would need 50 justices or 82 justices, and I suppose, instead, of using each day of the week, use each day of the year. When it comes to function, to functioning, actual group dynamics, of an organisation or in an organisation, though, there is an optimal range number of members for a cohesive group, a unit, before dynamics of a group change and are no longer a unit, and things fall apart. It is one thing to increase a group from three to five, or five to seven, and it justified, to account for increase in population and representation, but, it seeme like the Supreme Court, with nine, at a threshold, as is. It sort of seems like the concept of the situation is not dissimilar to the two legal principles simultaneously considered in parallel, the proportionality principle and the totality principle, only, the inverse? It also seems like, perhaps, the solution, structurally, isn't at the Supreme Court level and perhaps, cautious in the use of the term, shouldn't? There are currently 13 circuit courts? For arguments sake, assuming, the Supreme Court, as if a unitless constant, C, in an equation, not unlike like gravity of 9(.8) only without a vector, how would the other elements in the equation be defined, to maintain balance of power and the doctrine of separation of powers? Separation of powers, are horizontal and vertical? Division and distribution? If the circuit courts thought of as electrical circuits, in parallel and in series? The number of Circuit courts inversely proportional to the constant Supreme Court? ... ? If there were 27 or 28 circuit courts? C ∝1/circuit courts, where parallel circuit courts = series courts 1 + series courts 2 + series courts 3 ... + series court n . With how many court levels in a series, three or four, and, how many on a court one, three or five? .........? I don't know. Who knows? 1389 pounds? a troy ounce? suit? carriage? ... libra hammer pen ... a recurring measure of currency to make the law ... hehehe
God bless John Roberts
Hello, Michael Crommelin, (chief) professor ...
1:05 min ... "331 million." ... population number ... wow. Lost for words ... 25 million people x 12, or 26 million people x 13 .... it's like the amount of the population of multiple countries put together ... I'm completely prejudice and biased, because I quite like Australia, and for the most part, how things are managed in Australia, and the scale. It is possible to see how an argument, viewed from the perspective of representation per overall population, could seem like an intuitively sensible basis for increasing the number of those serving on the Supreme Court. It could be easy, for example, to slip into thinking that, with seven, on the High Court of Australia, the amount proportional, roughly, for the population and representative, as if, for each state and a territory, or perhaps, a Justice for each day of the week, or a justice per 4 million people. Using that logic though, the Supreme Court would need 50 justices or 82 justices, and I suppose, instead, of using each day of the week, use each day of the year. When it comes to function, to functioning, actual group dynamics, of an organisation or in an organisation, though, there is an optimal range number of members for a cohesive group, a unit, before dynamics of a group change and are no longer a unit, and things fall apart. It is one thing to increase a group from three to five, or five to seven, and it justified, to account for increase in population and representation, but, it seeme like the Supreme Court, with nine, at a threshold, as is. It sort of seems like the concept of the situation is not dissimilar to the two legal principles simultaneously considered in parallel, the proportionality principle and the totality principle, only, the inverse? It also seems like, perhaps, the solution, structurally, isn't at the Supreme Court level and perhaps, cautious in the use of the term, shouldn't? There are currently 13 circuit courts? For arguments sake, assuming, the Supreme Court, as if a unitless constant, C, in an equation, not unlike like gravity of 9(.8) only without a vector, how would the other elements in the equation be defined, to maintain balance of power and the doctrine of separation of powers? Separation of powers, are horizontal and vertical? Division and distribution? If the circuit courts thought of as electrical circuits, in parallel and in series? The number of Circuit courts inversely proportional to the constant Supreme Court? ... ? If there were 27 or 28 circuit courts? C ∝1/circuit courts, where parallel circuit courts = series courts 1 + series courts 2 + series courts 3 ... + series court n . With how many court levels in a series, three or four, and, how many on a court one, three or five? .........? I don't know. Who knows?
1389 pounds? a troy ounce? suit? carriage? ... libra hammer pen ... a recurring measure of currency to make the law ... hehehe
I learned a lot of this stuff in high school.
Do Americans never get tired of peddling their national myths?