13 The Supreme Court is no longer able to keep pace with the tremendous9 L% r' [1 w/ b) } m. R2 \% R
number of cases it agrees to decide. The Court schedules and hears5 |6 A" g2 \6 w9 v
160 hours of oral argument each year, and 108 hours of next year's term0 ?0 i8 I/ u/ f% i
will be taken up by cases left over from this year. Certainly the Court
& |% {& Q0 V5 N! V7 h cannot be asked to increase its already burdensome hours. The most
+ F6 N5 O$ e* Z( O6 ^ reasonable long-range solution to this problem is to allow the Court to
! m/ s) {- q( U4 k- a7 j decide many cases without hearing oral argument; in this way the Court $ l5 W2 }: Q; ]: z" |
might eventually increase dramatically the number of cases it decides0 H% Q2 l" M4 U/ {! f% u: G
each year.
! A4 l) O6 n X5 E
% g$ Z2 A0 [% L) ~& O& W9 h' E. i6 j Which of the following, if true, could best be used to argue against the
( x( q0 j* {' m( a) I: G5 |6 S feasibility of the solution suggested?
' m, ~4 |( \! T; i% D : w0 f1 ?% R" G5 ]
The time the Court spends hearing oral argument is only a small
' O6 k' z3 e/ k; b part of the total time it spends deciding a case. * ]. {# z* h+ O& L/ n: y
The Court cannot legitimately avoid hearing oral argument in any% y% c3 C# L6 i8 w
case le ft over from last year. y, K R2 s$ m
Most authorities agree that 160 hours of oral argument is the
E$ Y' r8 }9 N- r7 @ maximum number that the Court can handle per year.
) N0 j$ r0 ?2 E3 P: N5 I) b Even now the Court decides a small number of cases without
. y. Z& h$ |, [# r' ?5 r hearing oral argument. : u; E+ ?0 @3 d- N; N
In many cases, the delay of a hearing for a full year can be- ? b+ a3 l) f; }/ {
extremely expensive to the parties involved. |