Packing the courts is better for the Dems, even if the Republicans pack back

[TopShelfGoal]

I keep seeing the argument "there is no point packing the courts, the republicans will just pack back when they have the power". This argument completely misses the point and the long term strategy, getting the republicans to pack the courts back is a feature not a bug and beneficial over the status quo for the Dems over the long run.

Democrats should pack the courts. Ofcourse Rs will pack the courts back when they have a trifecta. That's fine. Once that happens, it will become accepted that the party with a trifecta can and will pack the courts. That is way better from Dems than the status quo. Reducing the control of the Supreme court to the duration between trifectas would most likely result in the Dems controlling the courts more often than current status quo where Rs control the courts for the forseeable future and the future control of the courts is basically down to a random number generator combined with the exact right electoral circumstances.

It would be great for the Democrats to basically de-legitimize the Supreme Court and make it into a political football. That's what I would I was was Democratic party leader. Making the courts an extension of the political parties and changing the status quo so that in the eyes of the public, votes for congress and president also determine who control the courts is a way better scenario for the Democrats in the long run. They need to drag that institution down into the swamp. That way whenever SC does something unpopular that strikes against a popular policy (ACA, Roe vs Wade), the Republicans will have to pay the price for it and would have a hard time trying to legislate from the courts rather than being able hide behind the "neutrality of the courts".

In the long run under this scheme the SC's power is greatly gutted and it essentially becomes like the High Courts in UK and Canada that have checks on their power that prevent them from striking down legislative statutes and reshape the US into a country where like the rest of the world legislative supremacy reigns over an unelected body issuing edicts from the mountain top.

[TopShelfGoal]

This ain't it chief.
If gutting checks and balances means more successful policymaking for 2 years I'd rather go without them.

It is not just 2 years though. This kind of aggressive approach essentially ties the SC to the political parties which both increases the number of years the Ds control the courts than the status quo, also makes the party controlling the SC pay a political price when SC makes an unpopular decision. I know Republicans won't like it, this post is not for them. It provides a way for the Ds to enact and maintain policy and completely politicizing the courts and making them an extension of the political parties is key to that objective. Basically the court will be "elected by proxy" which is good over the long run.