Supreme court expansion is...

[Ferguson97]

?

[Greedo punched first]

The Constitution doesn't mention the number. It is constitutional as long as the number isn't zero. The minimum is just a chief justice.

[Vosem]

A bad idea, because the current Court is good, but clearly constitutional. It was done under Ulysses Grant.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

An urgent necessity

[Thank you for being a friend...]

I don't like the idea of expanding it.  It should stay at nine, but I'd put term limits and have the terms spread out so that there's only one scheduled vacancy at a time. 

Maybe have one vacancy every odd year, so it would be:

Seat 1 becomes open in 2025.
Seat 2 becomes open in 2027.
Seat 3 becomes open in 2029...

Also require at least 56 or so votes in the Senate.  Make the majority vote threshold higher.  Justices shouldn't be confirmed 50-50 or 51-49.  To me that means there was something about the nominee that was either controversial or they were being rammed through.  It shouldn't be party-line.

I think we're in an era where the justice times their vacancy with the party that has the presidency and the Senate, so you're just repeating an ideological cycle with that.  Courts should be filled with judges that are not extremely ideological.  Obviously ideology is natural in politics and law, but not excessively so where they are more like activists and are groomed by either right or left think tanks.

Another idea is the idea of having them up for retention after 7 or so years in a national election, up or down vote.  If a justice is perceived as excessively partisan or wrong for the court, the country can just fire them.

There are other ideas, but the expansion doesn't sound good because once you (depending on what side you're on) have it the way you like it, what's to stop the other side from just making more seats to give themselves a majority?  Where does it stop - at 13 justices, 17, 25?

[jaichind]

A bad idea but constitutional

[Jim Crow]

Very bad idea and a good way to start a snowball effect.

[TDAS04]

I oppose it in theory, but it may be the only constitutional way to dilute the power of justices. Ending lifetime appointments would do a world of good for the country but is unconstitutional. If one party court-packs, the next party may try to do the same, but so be it. Then maybe there will increased pressure for a constitutional amendment on judicial reform, idk.

[Comrade Funk]

Very bad idea and a good way to start a snowball effect.

The snowball is already an avalanche. A bunch of billionaire-backed muppets who never have to experience the consequence of their decisions.

[Blue3]

It's definitely constitutional.

And a non-partisan argument could be made that the great expansion of our country's population, and therefore potential cases, could justify a larger court.

[ReallySuper]

waiting for the day when the supreme court is expanded to include every u.s. citizen and we are all forced to listen to oral arguments broadcast live via microchip and vote in national referenda for each and every minor order, cert petition and complex constitutional dispute that reaches the highest (lowest?) court.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Biden says he isn't interested in expanding the CRT, the CRT has to strike down Progressive legislation first in order to expand the CRT and right now Sinema is blocking the Filibuster