Court-packing is one of those proposals that sounds like a solution until you think two moves ahead. Then it becomes one of the most dangerous threats to constitutional governance.

The number nine has been the Supreme Court's size since 1869 — over 150 years. The last serious attempt to pack the court was FDR's 1937 plan, and it was rejected by his own Democratic supermajority in Congress. Even during the height of the New Deal, when Democrats controlled Congress overwhelmingly, the proposal was seen as a fundamental threat to judicial independence.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, explicitly opposed court-packing. In 2019, she said: 'Nine seems to be a good number. It's been that way for a long time.' She understood that adding seats to achieve political outcomes would undermine the court's legitimacy.

The game theory problem is obvious. If Democrats add four seats to create a 7-6 liberal majority, Republicans will add six seats when they next hold power to create a conservative majority. Then Democrats respond again. The court becomes an infinitely expanding political body with zero independence. Judicial review — the principle that courts can check unconstitutional government action — ceases to function.

The 'illegitimate' argument doesn't hold up either. Every current justice was nominated by a duly elected president and confirmed by a duly elected Senate, following the exact constitutional process. Disagreeing with a court's decisions doesn't make them illegitimate. Progressive icons like Ginsburg, Thurgood Marshall, and William Brennan served during conservative-majority courts without calling for expansion.

A 2021 presidential commission on Supreme Court reform — created by President Biden himself — concluded that court expansion was highly risky and likely to damage the institution's credibility and independence.

If you don't like the court's rulings, the proper remedy is the democratic process: elect presidents who appoint different justices. That's how the system is designed to work.