This is very good https://twitter.com/samuelmoyn/status/1214502247519997954

@samuelmoyn's appeal from and to the left (and, fittingly, pictured here on the left) matches with my argument from the center to the entire spectrum before 2016 back when we had 8 justices: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sacks-supreme-court-sleepy-docket-20161002-snap-story.html

Yet I'm not sure Moyn's support for progressive "unilateral disarmament" is the answer for the left, either, unless political mobilization wins full control of the federal political branches and enough of the state governments to mount a plausible campaign of judicial defiance.

And perhaps that's the point: to be so politically mobilized and victorious that right-wing judicial decrees are made dead letters. But that, like the progressive court reform proposals he rejects, is just as susceptible to co-optation when the political pendulum swings rightward

To me, a successful court reform project would be one not to obtain power or restore some mythical "neutrality," but rather one centered on achieving a "representation reinforcement" model that Moyn, in my view, too quickly dismisses.

A packed court that, say, upholds a new Voting Rights Act (made possible by a mobilized progressive electorate), proves workable judicial review of extreme partisan gerrymanders, and aggressively polices voter suppression will go a long way towards un-distorting our politics.

And once representation reinforcement becomes precedent, any judicial power grab from the right to revoke it will lack the plausible deniability of mere constitutional fealty the Roberts Court relied on in Shelby County and Rucho.

Seems to me entrenching representation reinforcement by disproving arguments against it, while still having a court susceptible to instability on other politically-charged issues, would render juristocracy useless and push its purveyors fully into fighting in the political arena