1. Do you think it is a good or a bad idea that only questions of law can be appealed?

2. Can you think of a situation when an appellate judge might reverse and remand a case? When a judge might reverse but not remand a case?

3. Do you think it is appropriate that the Supreme Court hears no more than 200 of the approximately 4,000 requests it receives each year? What criteria should the Court use in deciding which cases it will hear?

4. The Supreme Court has sometimes been criticized for being too political. When then-President Barak Obama nominated Merrick Garland, in March 2016, the Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, and it expired on January 3, 2017, leaving the newly elected president, Donald Trump, to nominate a new candidate. Does this have an effect on how people view the legitimacy of the decisions of the Justices? Can you think of alternative criteria for selecting Justices other than nomination by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate? What are the pros and cons of each alternative?

5. Why do you think the framers of the Constitution chose to give federal judges lifetime tenure and to protect them from salary reduction? Explain whether you think that was a wise decision.

6. Do you think judges should be elected or appointed? Why? If appointed, what do you think the criteria should be?

7. As the federal courts face an increasingly heavy workload, many have argued that it is time to either raise the required amount in controversy or eliminate diversity jurisdiction entirely. The requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000 is to help ensure that federal courts are not inundated with cases of minimal importance. In 1789 Congress set the figure at $500, but over the years it has increased the amount to the present-day figure. Would you be in favor of such changes?