While the size of the court isn't mandated by the Constitution and, in fact, changed several times in the country's first 80 or 90 years, it has been 9 for 150 years. FDR tried to change it with his "court packing" plan and it blew up in his face. With that track record, the likelihood of a majority in the House or Senate supporting a bill to increase the size of the court is approximately zero. It's also the reason why the Republicans haven't tried to increase it while they controlled the WH, House and Senate.

One other hurdle: Getting the legislation through the Senate would require overcoming a repub filibuster. The Democrats could kill the filibuster (it's already dead for executive and judicial appointments), but that's another step that might not get the requisite support within the Democratic caucus.

He wanted to pack it to get his New Deal agenda approved. His packing plan failed, but the Court reversed itself on the New Deal because of the 1936 election. So he lost the battle but won the war.

#GOTV

That notion has been debunked over the years as information (including documentation) regarding the court's deliberations has come out. The supposed "switch in time that saved nine" -- Justice Owen Roberts' vote in the Parrish case -- actually occurred before the court packing plan was unveiled. Moreover, the plan never had widespread public support and was ultimately torpedoed when a couple of months later Justice Devanter announced his retirement, giving FDR his first opportunity to name a Supreme Court justice. Despite the fact that the Senate had 74 Democrats at the time, the plan was killed by a 70-20 vote. While hardly the only reason, the controversy surrounding the proposal didn't help FDR and the Democrats, who took a shellacking in the 1938 midterms.

I said FDR got what he wanted. Which is something that could happen again in 2020 or after if Democrats win a convincing majority. Also, I suspect this time around would be different. If a conservative court rolls back 80 years of legal precedent, the democratic base will support all possible means to prevent that. And the next few elections will be base elections, so the base will be in the driver seat.

So how does that build the case for a new court packing plan? Will a majority of Democratic Senators be willing to take on a proposal that will undoubtedly become a major rallying cry for their opponents while probably not firing up independents in support? I doubt it.

If they roll back popular programs, the court will face a giant backlash and the consequences are difficult to predict.

The closest precedent would be the Dred Scott decision. The potential implication of the decision was not just that Southern states could allow slavery, but also Northern states could not prohibit it. Ending the compromise that created the Constitution and had been delicately maintained ever since, this galvanized abolitionist more than ever and forced the nation to finally confront the issue.

We dont have politics anymore.

We have an actual russian asset, traitor criminal fascist prick in the WH.

Politics aint what it used to be

given its history as a pretty unpopular proposal even when put forward by a massively popular president.

Our country is permanently damaged beyond the point of return, we cant get it back even if we save it.

We wont be the same, ever.

All because "she gave a speech once"

A politician's first instinct is survival and if they don't think voting for a court packing measure will be popular with constituents or will give their opponents something to rally around, they aren't going to go there.

the other is that they would then have to get nearly all their caucus to agree, which is a tall order even for republicans.

i have no doubt that they would pack the court if they had enough votes in their caucus to do it.

congress could pass a law, and the president would have to sign it, so obviously we wouldn't want to do that until we had both houses of congress and the presidency.

ideally we would have 60 senators to overcome the inevitable filibuster, though we could always go nuclear on it (though keep in mind what little is left of the filibuster power is the only remaining claim to power we hold at the moment; getting rid of it could later bite us).

fdr tried early on this but even with his high levels of popularity he got too much pushback. if he couldn't get it done, that says a lot.


that said, i totally agree that adding two more liberal seats would right a major wrong....

Only thing keeping alive is Mitch McConnell who knows he may need it someday. But if he uses it to obstruct a Democratic congress, they will take it away and point to Trump's own words to justify it.

It’s extremely unlikely to happen. Because if it were actually feasible then the Republicans would have already done it themselves.

I'm a gambler...I'd roll the dice. If it is framed as "the two are illegitimate" maybe there wouldn't be too much outrage. But I can understand those who might oppose it. Plus, I'm sure the opposition would try to add two justices...and it would just go on and on until everyone and their grandmothers are on the USSC.

I'm guessing almost none.

If either party tried that and did it you can almost be assured they would lose that control of one or both houses of Congress the next election cycle.

Now, might that be worth the cost? Use up your new majority but stave off possibly decades of bad rulings by the court?

I think it may be. But convincing a bunch of members of Congress it’s worth the cost to them of losing the job may be a hard sell.

It would start an arms race. What's to keep the next majority from increasing again to get their guys in charge. In 50 years we could have 50 people of the court. That would be fun.

As others have mentioned, they'd have to pass a bill through both the House and the Senate, and then have the President sign it.

And getting it through the Senate specifically will be extraordinarily difficult. They'll likely have to go nuclear again on legislation, and I think both parties have changed the rules as much as they are going to.

Even then, there's nothing to stop the Republicans from expanding the court again whenever they are next in power.

Ultimately, we're talking about diminishing the power of the judiciary by changing it to fit the needs of whatever party happens to be in power at the time. I would rather live with the Supreme Court pissing me off a couple times a year, rather than legislating the court into irrelevance. We'd have no checks on legislative or executive power at that point.

I can also imagine the consequences of court expansion after court expansion being the states start to push for a constitutional convention, to fix the court. But a Constitutional Convention is a SUPER high risk activity for either party, and our country as a whole.

Regardless of party or the will to stack it, it feels too small right now. More people would really lower emphases of each member and make new members less politically relevant.

I imagine that replacing 1 out of 19 would be less problematic than replacing 1 of 9.

As it stands right now, it is a pure crap shoot as to who happens to be in power when someone retires or passes. Having more would make the replacement schedule more random.

fear of what would happen in 2022.

Packing the Court didn't work out so well for FDR, who lost a massive number of seat in the next midterm.