Y’all know I’m against incarceration and the capital punishment but maybe immurement can be the answer? It’s like the best of both worlds.

Devins and Baum.

… between 1790 and early 2010 there were only two decisions that the Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court designated as important and that had at least two dissenting votes in which the Justices divided along party lines, about one-half of one percent.

That sounds like science fiction to my ears living in an era where everyone has a take. The political cleave points have become fewer and wider thanks to the two-camp mathematics of FPTP and of algorithm-driven social media. We’re living in the infocalypse so people can’t get good honest facts.

SCOTUS doesn’t actually accept full cases (most of the time), instead they accept a single question about a case (and you’re not allowed to argue other issues). This, according to the article, helps them to behave more like a super-legislature than a court.