In a 1984 article in the Journal of Legal Studies, Gordon Tullock and I.J. Good proposed a reform to the American judiciary that would have raised the threshold number of appellate jurists needed for a decision to become binding on lower courts, increased the number of cases that the Supreme Court hears, and prolonged the wait time for “good,” highly durable precedent. Recognizing the trade-off between timeliness and best results, Tullock and Good proposed still longer delays in exchange for even better results. This paper looks to the record of appellate decision making since that time to determine the proposal’s projected impact on precedent creation and costs to the legal system. Further arguments for and against the proposal are weighed in light of these findings.