"There is no doubt that if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Justice Robert H. Jackson, concurring)

Ok, I'll be dumb though trying not to blind. What's wrong with coin flips for close decisions?

Like a lot of non-lawyers, you are assuming that there is a "right" answer to all legal questions, and bemoaning the possibility that close decisions might be wrong. But Supreme Court jurisprudence is not merely an elaborate application of formal logic. As I just explained, starting assumptions matter a lot. Two judges on the Supreme Court can both offer very well reasoned opinions, devoid of any obvious logical flaws, yet end up on different sides.

It is possible to accept the legitimacy of a decision you disagree with without blindly accepting it.

Having an additional mechanism to overturn 5-4 decisions that were wrongly decided will sometimes overturn 5-4 decisions that were correctly decided. The Constitution allows for amendments to overturn decisions if a sufficient number of people disagree. That mechanism has a high bar, perhaps too high of a bar, but making it too easy to amend the Constitution would be worthless.

DS - are we heading for a modified jelly bean theory

Listen to the experts and if that's close then the best answer we can get for now is from the wisdom of crowds?

No. The wisdom of the crowds solution was just one of a few suggestions I threw out. Tie braking federal justices is probably better.

I don't understand how so many of you are so willing to see monumental changes happening or not happening simply because, for instance a judge dies in September rather than March.

In spite of some of my wording I am not assuming that. My OP is really only about how easily 5-4 could be 4-5.

But the point that you are missing is that the need to get a "correct" answer has to be balanced with the need to get a "final" answer. Further, I am not sure I see why the rule that I LEARED FROM YOU many years ago doesn't apply here:

If a decision is so close, it is unlikely that it is a very big mistake if you make the wrong one.

It's easier to accept once you come to the understanding that 50% of the country are morons.

I am proposing that there should be a different mechanism for 5-4 decisions than the others.

Both of your points, while usually correct, don't apply to a lot of recent cases that have major impact on the country.

Your proposals were far far worse than the current "final" say of majority of 9. In fact, they were the ramblings of a bored idiot.... a random group of federal judges as a Super Supreme Court lol? an internet vote of citizens? a Congressional vote?? so much for removing the politics which was supposedly your concern

Because if you're weighing a 56% chance of winning against a 44% chance, you should take the 44% because it's too likely to happen.

That's another level of expertise - what if they too are split? It's an idea with merit because the only objection to your jelly bean post was that trained experts would do better.

I get that, it's just not obvious that large difference in outcome because of small changes in the inputs (i.e exactly when someone dies) is a bad thing. We should be worried that any solution would make progressive change too hard. I don't know, so unlike others I think the idea is interesting (except when it's too USA specific)

My proposals specified that a close secondary vote did NOT overturn the 5-4 decision.

Yeah, like that would be only flaw? No other real downsides to national jury of 150 million ruling on every close SC court case? Or turning them into Congressional food fights? Or having SC overruled by a collection of lower court justices? Should work fabulously, right?

Would expect Justices to simply make informal pact to swing a vote to majority each time to make it 6-3 so the power of the SC isn't undermined by a political circus every close case. Thus making a mockery or your whole premise.

Really? You think that the four justices in the minority would be more concerned with that than righting what they think is a wrong?

(I do agree that the process of overriding should not be a circus. A permanent panel for just these circumstances, or for actual ties would be better. But again my main point is that these cases are essentially decided by almost random events and they shouldn't be.)

The makeup of the SC isn't random.

Better proposal would be to always have an even number of Justices, so there would never be one vote decisions. Tied votes affirm lower court ruling, but without setting a precedent.

I was going to say that myself.

That's already the case for tie votes. And Congress can vote to increase justices to 10 or reduce to 8. (The Court has had even numbers in past.) I guess change OP to "Congress should consider adding a SC justice" rather than this overrideable nonsense.

Judges that don't attempt to follow to constitution and law should be thrown out. Gold and silver should be money. Obamacare should be thrown out.

Explain to me this why are we forced to pay Skhreli who basically has no degree, a salary of over $1 million a month of Obamacare money. Would in not just be better to use eminent domain and buy his company for what he paid for it or allow people $3000 a year in a medical savings account. People can fly to Africa and get the same drug for pennies on the dollar.

From wikipedia.
"In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction."

Many of these judges do not follow any law, they make decisions based how they feel and it generally the liberal judges that totally ignore the constitution. Over 50% of them should be replaced.

There should be a law board that evaluates whether their decisions follow the constitution. If they are allowed to just make judgement based on opinion, why do we even have a supreme court?

Thus, if a vote comes down 8-0 or 7-1 then the law should pass, but is it comes down 6-2, 5-3, 4-4, 3-5, 2-6, 1-7 or 0-8 then law should be rejected.

I leave 1 vote for misinterpretation.

The country was meant to be a republic where individuals have rights even if they are the minority.