Respectfully: If one side expands scotus for political gain, I guarantee that the other side immediately does the same the moment they get the house and senate. The only way for that not to happen is to guarantee that they never lose the house/senate again. That, my friend, is a dangerous thought and one that may lead to civil conflict. Let's hope the statement you made is not followed - else hell may soon follow that.

And if you think that the court is politicized now, and that's a problem, each party expanding it to get a majority when they're elected is not the way to fix it.

(And if you think that the court is politicized now, and the problem is that it's politicized the wrong way, you're part of the problem. And if you think it's not politicized when it goes your way but it is when it decides against you, you're probably a bit biased.)

One side already has, effectively.

Things are going to get spicy when Loving v. Virginia and P̶l̶e̶s̶s̶y̶ ̶v̶.̶ ̶F̶e̶r̶g̶u̶s̶o̶n̶ get repealed.

edit: I'm dumb.

Plessy v. Ferguson explicitly upheld the separate, but equal doctrine underpinning many of the Jim Crow laws. Why would you not want that repealed, even if it has largely been gutted by Brown, Civil/Voting Rights Act, etc.?

Apparently I meant Brown v. Board of Education, not Plessy v. Ferguson. I shouldn't post both in anger and haste.

When he floated the notion of expanding the Supreme Court, FDR was vastly more popular than Biden is. You can see how that went.

Your last sentence isn't supported by history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_... Plus of course aligned with your first sentence FDR got reelected after that. Twice.

I rate these decisions as the first decisive break from what FDR wrought in the 1930s.