The argument most commonly advanced against Ds adding Supreme Court seats is that doing so would inevitably lead to Rs adding more seats and endless rounds of expansion.

Here's why Ds and progressives shouldn't take that argument seriously.

1. To add seats, the GOP would need control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. Getting all 3 any time soon is FAR less of a sure thing than they want you to think.

It never happened at any point during the presidency of Nixon. Or Ford. Or Reagan. Or Bush I.

2. And Ds expanding the Court would make it still less a sure thing. It'd be a whole helluva lot harder for this GOP to retake all 3 if an expanded Scotus helped level the playing field by barring wild partisan gerrymanders and naked vote-suppression. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/gop-maneuvers-rule-minority-party/577948/

3. Whether the Court levels the electoral playing field or no, time is emphatically not on the Rs side. Every year that passes, the demographic math gets harder and harder for them.

4. Harsh electoral reality—change or die—has forced parties to remake themselves before.

By the time Rs are in full control again, the nihilist, power-mad party of Trump and McConnell could be as long gone as the D party of McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis was by 94.

5. So it could well be a long time before Rs control the presidency and both houses, and when they do it could well be a whole different R party. What feels so certain now could feel quite different then.

6. Great! But what if you think what I’ve said so far is all horseshit? You like the GOP’s odds of regaining total control soon, and you think the odds of them ever changing course are poor.

See, even then the seat-adding-death-spiral argument is still a loser.

7. NOT expanding the court now won't save us. Think about the 2014-16 judicial nomination blockade, and Garland, and unhinged hearing Kavanaugh, and the broad-daylight 180 to ram through Barrett.

They will do whatever want. They don't give a fuck if Ds did it first.

The relevant question isn't whether today's Rs will add Scotus seats if Ds do. It's whether, no matter what Ds do, they'll add seats the moment they both can and think they need to retain power. Friends, we know that answer.

8. A huge part of how we got in this pickle is that Rs spent the past decade justifiably confident that Ds wouldn't retaliate to its asymmetric escalations. More passivity = more escalations.

9. When your side's the only one playing hardball, it's so easy, such fun. But when the other side finally joins, it stops being a jolly giggle. It starts to hurt.

Of this I feel sure: changing course won't *even cross Rs' minds* until they hurt too.

10. Fighting back won't start a cycle of escalation. Fighting back is the only hope we have of ending it.

Is adding Scotus seats risk-free? Heck no. It’s dangerous! There was a strong norm against it for a reason.

To paraphrase Churchill, it’s the worst option except for all the others. /end