Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

Don't call it court-packing. Call it court-updating. We've had 9 justices since the US was sparsely populated.

And do it in a way that doesn't spark an arms race: Example, Biden adds a few seats, then two seats added every 4 years until no single justice has too much power.

Okay, yeah, I'm assuming Biden will win. I'm also assuming McConnell will ram another justice through.

Others are so much better at marketing than I am 😉

That requires a Constitutional amendment, so it's much harder.
On the other hand, the Constitution does not specify the number of justices.

The idea was for judges to be able to do what was right without worrying about reelection. It was supposed to put the court above politics.

At times it has actually worked. Desegregation would have ben harder if federal judges had to answer to voters.

Good idea. If only I could go back and tell Hamilton a few things.

Like dude, you had some real good ideas, but the electoral college was not one of them.

Here's why it's better: With an entire branch of government divided only 9 ways, each justice has way too much power, particularly because they have lifetime appointments.

A larger court means that not every justice hears every case. Panels would form.

Precisely.

How about calling it "unstacking the court?"

Having written a biography about FDR, I can say confidently that it's an entirely different situation, not to mention the population of the US has grown and the Supreme Court docket has expanded. ahhttps://twitter.com/MattBladesNYC/status/1307848860258115584

I also think. . .

. . . it's a perfectly appropriate response to McConnell's behavior.

But it requires the Democrats winning the Senate.