I'm a bit intrigued by the idea of SCOTUS with an even number of justices appointed equally from each party. Neither party could force SCOTUS precedent unless at least one justice crossed to vote with justices of the other party. It has the downside of leaving conflicting precedents from different circuits, but perhaps that would force SCOTUS to look more narrowly or past outcomes based on political philosophy if the conflicting precedents were causing harm to the country.
Eric Seagal has made a far more
detailed case. It was hearing him on the radio earlier this year that got me thinking about this.
