Court packing seemed crazy when I first saw people talking about it. But it is seeming less crazy to me as I think about it more. 1/
Republicans maintained their majority on the court by breaking the longstanding norm that the Senate should give Supreme Court nominees prompt consideration. This norm isn't in the Constitution but it was widely assumed to be a rule of the game prior to 2016. 2/
Now some liberals think Democrats should gain a majority on the court by breaking the longstanding norm that the court should have nine members. This norm isn't in the Constitution but has been respected since 1869. 3/
The realities of partisanship and strategic resignations means that Republicans are likely to maintain that majority for the foreseeable future. It's hard to argue that Democrats are obligated to just live with that. 4/
Ideally we'd change the Constitution to establish better rules. I think the right rule would be that the president gets two Supreme Court picks per term, and justices get 18-year terms with no renewals. No strategic resignations, no perpetual control by one party. 5/
But Republicans obviously aren't going to be interested in changing the rules if the alternative is that they just get to control the Supreme Court forever. 6/
So maybe Democrats should pack the court and simultaneously propose a Constitutional amendment establishing new rules that preclude court packing. If Republicans hate court packing they can ratify the amendment. If not, they aren't really that concerned about court packing. 7/
