I have utterly no problem with it. The Constitution gives Congress the latitude for it and the SCOTUS size should be increased anyway to allow for a wider diversity of viewpoints.

It should be 13 justices.

gerrymandering, but worse in that it changes the rules to reset the game in a biased, very much non-opportunistic way not for a relatively small jurisdiction for an election cycle or until the next census, but for decades for the country.

I've rather enjoyed some retrospective articles I've read since Kennedy announced his retirement. He was long considered a swing justice, until he retired; suddenly many retconned him into being an arch-conservative, something few actual conservatives would agree with. In other words, the uber-rightist turned out to be not so uber and not so rightist. Then there were other judges that should have made the court very conservative, and, in the end, didn't have the much-feared effect. (Except for those who are very much not in the center, as observed from outside the system, but who nonetheless insist on using themselves to calibrate dead center.)

Two seats stolen so far.

I see no reason we should let past norms dictate future actions.

Added: I just don't see it being successful as court packing would be challenged in court and it would undoubtedly be decided at the Supreme Court and they sure the Con judges sure aren't going to decid3 against them.

I think our best bet is getting 67 Senate seats + majority house to investigate and impeach the Cons in the court.

End the fascist rule.

Lost 72 House seats in the following midterms and 7 in the Senate. Roosevelt's New Deal never recovered.