Should a Democratic President add 2 more Justices on the Supreme Court?

[Vincent]

Honestly I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who thinks the fact that a batsh**t crazy conservative nominee from the 80s was shot down is terrible and deserves a never-ending cycle of retribution (despite Reagan still getting to fill the seat). No one is really arguing that the Senate must confirm the president's first pick every time afaik. If the president's picks are never supposed to be rejected, what is the point of Senate confirmation? The unacceptable part is holding seats open until your party gets to fill them.

I'm not going to continue trading walls of text around this since there isn't much more to be discussed. Both sides have contributed to this fight, but Republicans have constantly escalated in dramatic fashions and used really poor excuses to justify it ("""Biden Rule"""? lol). End of story. I've had this argument enough that I don't care to continue. Believe whatever you want.

It’s really stunning how disingenuous it all is. It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to claim the other side is bad for flirting with, but not doing, the stuff that your side does gleefully.

I'm curious. Is there also a "Burr rule" where the opposing party just never confirms a Supreme Court Justice?

“If Hillary becomes president, I’m going to do everything I can do to make sure that four years from now, we’re still going to have an opening on the Supreme Court" - Sen. Richard Burr

https://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/local/sen-richard-burr-says-on-what-basis-he-would-reject/article_377f530a-63fb-5365-aff3-b939e57f30c6.html

[Vincent]

unprecedented assault on Robert Bork

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Eisenhower, LBJ, and Nixon all had nominees that were rejected for their "extreme" views just like Bork was.

Seriously, this didn't begin in 1987. Case in point would be Strom Thurmond's pornographic film festival to attack Abe Fortas's free speech rulings.

[Vincent]

To give a direct answer to the original question: No, adding justices to avenge a "stolen" pick would not be reasonable. However, this could change depending on how the Republican majority on the Supreme Court uses their authority. The Court depends on credibility. It can survive swinging somewhat to the left or the right.  However, it does not have complete unchecked authority. Something like reinstating the Lochner decision, effective ruling the constitution mandates a far right economic ideology, should be resisted. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find conservatives who feel the constitution mandates their political ideology.