Thread by @JohnFPfaff

We should stop calling it "Court Packing" and instead call it the "Court Modernization Act."

Which, to be fair, it is. Does it make sense to keep running SCOTUS the exact same way we did before penicillin, the car, the computer, pretty much all of modern life?

https://twitter.com/nothingsmonstrd/status/1313802335123050496

Expand the Court, and set it at an even number (which is Originalist too, since the first Court had six).

And professionalize it too. Nothing in the Constitution requires the Justices' only real assistants to be recent law school graduates.

If you think abt it, the current design is utterly bonkers (sorry, many of my colleagues; but it is).

We call on Justices to decide antirust one day, crim justice the next, employment law then the history of gun ownership after that.

Aided by 4 20-something legal generalists.

We like to pretend SCOTUS is just "deciding the law," which perhaps motivates the use of law school grads as assistants.

But it is making huge policy decisions, based on huge policy/historical approaches. They should be adequately guided.

nytimes.com/2017/10/18/opi…

So:

More justices and more professional assistance.

If we are going to have a superlegislature superlegislate, it can at least do so in a professional, modern, updated way.

Defending "court packing" makes it seem like a concession. We should EMBRACE major change.