Brief thought-experiment on what Court packing looks like over a 30-year period, just for fun.
Let's start in 1993. Clinton just took office, and Ds control House and Senate. Let's assume all elections from then on follow history.
The only underlying rule for the game is that everyone appoints on raw power terms.

With WH + Senate, you fill all vacancies.
With WH but not Senate, you cannot fill vacancies.
With WH + Senate + House, you can make add + appoint new vacancies until you have a majority.
Simplifying assumptions: you can legislatively /add/ but not /remove/ positions, nominees are ideologically equivalent to the party who appointed them, only goal is to get a bare majority, initial members fall off the Court at their actual historical times, ...
... and we'll assume new members won't fall off the Court during our 1993-2020 year experiment (of the initial Court, the average term was 26.9 years, so not too far off)
OK, so we start in 1993. Clinton inherits a 7-2 R majority on the Court, but he has WH+Senate+House. So he can expand the Court. So he immediately adds 6 new spots to open up a bare majority of 1, i.e. the Court goes to a 7-8 D majority.
In 1993, White retires, and Clinton can appoint another, staying to 7-8. In 1994 Blackmun retires, and Clinton replaces him to give us a 6-9 D majority.
1995 happens, and Clinton loses his Senate and House majority, so can't appoint anyone else, but also no vacancies come up during the remainder of his term, so nbd.
Fast-forward to 2001, and GWB takes office. But he takes office with a Senate and House majority, so he can expand the Court to rectify the 6-9 D majority. So he adds four new justices, to give a 10-9 R majority.
Rehnquist dies in 2005, and GWB can replace him, and O'Connor dies in 2006 and GWB can replace her. But both are R-appointees, so this doesn't shift the balance in our hypothetical.
In 2007, GWB loses his House and Senate majority, but nothing changes on the Court so nobody cares.
In 2009 Obama takes office, and brings with him a D majority in the House and Senate. He's inherited a 10-9 R majority, and doesn't like it, so expands the Court by 2 to give a 10-11 D majority.
Souter retires in 2009, and Obama can replace him, to give a 9-12 D majority, and then Stevens retires in June 2010, and Obama can replace him, maintaining the 9-12 D majority.
Obama then loses his Senate majority in 2015, and so when Scalia dies in 2016, raw power means he can't fill the vacancy. So it's a 9-11 D majority with a vacancy that spills past the election.
2017 arrives and Trump takes office, again with a Senate and House majority. So he's inherited a 9-11 D majority with a vacancy, fills it to get to 10-11, and then appoints two new spots to get a 12-11 majority on the Court.
Then in 2018, Kennedy resigns, Trump replaces him, Court stays the same. In 2020, RBG dies, and Trump replaces her, shifting the Court to a 13-10 majority.
Then let's play it one step further, take the polls at face value, and suppose perhaps Biden wins in 2021 and takes House and Senate. If he does, in this game, they expand the Court again, to take a 13-14 D majority.
A couple of observations about the ratchet:

First, It is a strict one-way ratchet on size. Every time someone takes WH+Senate+House, and doesn't already own the Court, there's no real mechanism by which the Court would ever get smaller.
Next, the only power dynamics that matter are
1) Do you own WH+Senate+House, in which case you just automatically expand the Court to get a majority, no matter the previous composition of the Court
2) Do you own WH+Senate for filling /vacancies/
If you play the game again, but smarter, you can circumvent the risk of being screwed over by second one by just packing the Court to a bigger majority whenever you have the first.
So the logical outcome if you play the game for raw power is an automatic ratchet on Court size, and the Court majority is just whoever last owned WH+Senate+House, and immediately flips whenever that changes.
(note also that playing the game smarter to have a larger majority whenever you take WH+S+H also means the size expands faster)
and over 30 years you're already got to nearly 30 justices.
Anyway, tl;dr is we're already at the point where the raw-power game is being played with the Court, it has a sucky logical conclusion, and the off-ramp for it probably involves taking the Court's structure out of the hands of congresses and presidents via an Article V amendment.
You can follow @pwnallthethings.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: