They’re Trying to Take Over the Supreme Court… And It’s Worse Than You Think!

You’ve probably heard the sales pitch: expanding the Court is about fairness, balance, and making the bench “reflect America.” Scratch the surface and a more complicated picture emerges—one where short‑term policy wins risk long‑term institutional damage. Court packing doesn’t persuade the public; it bypasses persuasion altogether by changing who gets to call the balls and strikes.

History backs up this caution. In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to grow the Court after justices struck down parts of his New Deal. He framed it as efficiency. Voters and leaders from both parties saw it for what it was: a power play. They balked—and the plan failed—because Americans sensed the danger of turning a neutral court into a political instrument.

And if you think packing the Court is a one‑and‑done “reform,” think again. The moment one side expands the bench to get favorable rulings, the other side has every incentive to do the same when it gains power. That’s not reform—it’s an arms race. The endgame isn’t a stronger judiciary; it’s a sprawling, unstable, revolving‑door tribunal that looks and acts like a mini‑legislature with robes.

The New Push to “Fix” the Court

Supporters of expansion argue that recent decisions are out of step with public opinion and democratic values. The underlying frustration is real: big rulings on religious liberty, the Second Amendment, administrative power, and more have reset the legal landscape. But recent appointments have produced a textualist or originalist majority—judges who interpret laws and the Constitution according to the words on the page and their original public meaning. That’s not a coup; it’s one legitimate judicial philosophy among several, and it’s been part of American jurisprudence for decades.

From that viewpoint, court packing becomes a shortcut. Instead of winning elections, building coalitions, and passing durable laws—or pursuing constitutional amendments—advocates seek to change the makeup of the Court so the outcomes change too. It’s a tempting move in a polarized era, but it cuts against the slow, deliberative design the Founders created to prevent factions from seizing too much power too quickly.

A Lesson From 1937

FDR’s failed plan remains the cautionary tale. He claimed the Court was overworked and needed more justices to keep up. The public didn’t buy it. They understood what was at stake: not workload, but the independence of the judiciary. Even many Democrats rejected the idea because they recognized the potential for endless tit‑for‑tat escalation. The lesson endures. Nine isn’t sacred because it’s a magic number; it’s valuable because it’s stable, and stability undergirds public trust.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—iconic to many on the left—put it plainly: “Nine seems to be a good number.” Her warning wasn’t about protecting any particular ideology; it was about preserving the Court’s legitimacy. Tinker with the size to gain an advantage, and you invite your opponents to do the same. Once that door opens, it rarely closes.

Why Now? The Power of a Textualist Majority

For decades, both sides accused the other of judicial activism. Today’s debate gained steam because a series of appointments created a stronger bloc of justices who favor textualism and originalism. That shift has constrained federal agencies, strengthened certain individual rights, and reset the terms of several policy fights. Those who dislike these outcomes argue the Court is “out of control.” Those who support them say the Court is finally hewing to the Constitution’s limits.

But either way, changing the number of justices because you don’t like the rulings isn’t a remedy; it’s retaliation. A constitutional democracy needs a judiciary that applies the law, not one reshaped after every election cycle to deliver specific policy outcomes.

The Escalation Trap: From Nine to Who Knows?

Picture the vicious cycle. Congress adds four justices. Two years later, power changes hands and the size jumps again. Repeat. In a decade you could end up with a 17‑, then 27‑, then 49‑member Court. The robes remain, but the gravitas vanishes. The Court stops being a guardian of principle and becomes a partisan prize—a perpetual redo machine for losing agendas.

That spiral wouldn’t just create chaos at the top. It would erode public confidence across the system. If the Supreme Court looks like politics by other means, why should the public respect decisions they dislike? Once compliance becomes optional in the minds of citizens, the rule of law is on borrowed time.

What History and Comparative Politics Warn Us

Nations that weakened their courts to consolidate political power rarely kept their democracies healthy. Look at episodes in places like Venezuela or Hungary, where ruling parties restructured courts to rubber‑stamp preferred policies. The short‑term gains were obvious; the long‑term costs were severe: concentrated executive power, diminished rights, and more brittle societies. America isn’t those countries—but the structural dynamics of packing courts are universal. Undermine judicial independence, and you risk undermining liberty itself.

Who’s Pushing and Why

In Washington, well‑funded advocacy groups and political operatives have invested heavily in the “fix the court” narrative. The message is urgent and dire: democracy depends on expanding the bench now. But handing more power to whichever faction currently holds Congress and the White House isn’t democratizing—it’s centralizing. It trades a neutral arbiter for a fluctuating political instrument.

There’s also the blunt political calculus. When courts reject preferred policies, it’s easier to change the referees than to persuade voters. That approach might deliver immediate victories on hot‑button issues—abortion, guns, healthcare—but at the cost of transforming the judiciary into just another political battlefield.

Is the Court Illegitimate—or Just Unpopular With Some?

Another claim says the current Court is illegitimate because of how recent nominations unfolded. It’s fair to debate the norms surrounding confirmation battles, but here’s the bottom line: each justice was appointed and confirmed through the constitutional process. The rules that govern nominations and confirmations have remained stable for generations. Disliking outcomes isn’t proof of illegitimacy; it’s proof of disagreement.

If we start rewriting the rules every time we lose a case or an election, the Court stops being a court and turns into a policy tool. That’s not checks and balances—it’s a power struggle with robes.

The Real‑World Costs of Playing Politics With the Court

Even the debate over packing the Court inflicts damage. Every time a politician threatens to expand the bench, public approval drops a little more. Confidence is hard to win and easy to lose; institutional trust erodes drip by drip. Over time, that erosion matters. It affects how readily citizens accept decisions, how predictably businesses plan, and how consistently agencies apply the law.

And if public trust collapses? We get the worst‑case scenario: a society where every ruling is seen through a partisan lens, and every branch is fair game for procedural sabotage. That’s a high price to pay for a handful of policy wins.

What Real Reform Looks Like

If the goal is a judiciary that’s fair, impartial, and respected, there are better paths than packing:

- Strengthen ethics and transparency. Clear, enforceable ethics rules can bolster public confidence without changing the number of justices.

- Improve the confirmation process. Reduce performative hearings and focus on jurisprudence, qualifications, and temperament.

- Invest in civics education. A public that understands what courts do—and don’t do—is less vulnerable to overheated rhetoric.

- Legislate with clarity. When Congress writes precise laws, courts have less room for interpretive tug‑of‑war.

- Consider structural reforms that don’t politicize outcomes. Ideas like staggered, non‑renewable terms for justices—if achieved via constitutional amendment—should be debated on their merits, not weaponized for immediate partisan advantage.

These approaches address legitimate concerns about the judiciary without starting a spiral that future Congresses can’t control.

A Reality Check From Public Opinion

Despite the volume of the court‑packing chorus, most Americans recoil when the idea is explained plainly. Polls consistently show broad skepticism toward expanding the Court. People instinctively understand that moving the goalposts mid‑game isn’t fairness—it’s gamesmanship. Voters may disagree bitterly over outcomes, but they want a stable, impartial system more than a scoreboard that flips based on who’s in charge this term.

The Principle at Stake

The Founders designed a system where change is hard, especially on fundamental questions. That was the point. We argue, we vote, we legislate, we amend—but we don’t rig the referees. Enduring principles, not momentary majorities, are supposed to rule the day. When we honor that design, we protect everyone—today’s winners and tomorrow’s losers alike—from the excesses of concentrated power.

The Bottom Line

Court packing isn’t about neutral reform. It’s about changing outcomes by changing the Court’s makeup. That path invites retaliation, swells the bench, and shatters trust in the one institution that must stand above the fray. If we want a judiciary that can say “no” to power—any party’s power—we can’t turn it into a political plaything.

So the next time you hear calls to expand the Supreme Court, ask: Who benefits? Is it ordinary citizens—or the political class chasing quick wins? Our system is designed to withstand political storms because it rests on rules we agree to respect, even when we lose. That shared commitment—not the number nine per se—is what keeps American justice credible.

Your Move

Where do you land on court expansion? Should the size of the Supreme Court ever change, or is that a line we shouldn’t cross? Share your take in the comments. And if you found this perspective useful, pass it along, subscribe for more deep dives, and tell us which hot‑button issues you want us to explore next. The health of our republic depends on informed citizens willing to defend institutions that defend us.