[Danastasio1]

[ QUOTE ]
15) Supreme Court decisions would be made by randomly-selected jurors and not by justices. Grand juries would select which cases would be heard. Many more cases would be heard because there would be there enough “courts” to hear all of the cases deemed worthy of hearing by the Supreme Court Grand Jury. The pay would be the equivalent of the pay of the justices so as not to discriminate against the working class (i.e., 2 weeks of Supreme Court duty would get you paid about the same as a 2 week paycheck for a current Supreme Court justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would lead to a myriad of problems. However, I'll make just one argument against as I assume there will be others who can articulate similar arguments with greater effectiveness / clarity. Legal issues of paramount importance inherently deserve to be decided by a body nominated and installed by elected representatives and determined to be the highest quality of jurist. The idea of grand jury selection and "random jurors" handing down rulings on matters of great national interest with repercussions for generations such as the death penalty or abortion is, to say the least, unacceptable. I would add that although many journalists and authors complain about the Court rejecting hundreds and hundreds of cases each year, don't mistake this as the Court lacking the time or the ability, it is instead primarily a matter of whether the Justices believe a case falls within the Court's jurisdiction.