Democrat-appointees made huge changes to the constitution when we had a “skewed” court going the other way. I think those decisions were terribly wrong as a legal matter, but what’s dangerous is the effort to make it seem like they were illegitimate through the rhetoric that’s being spewed these days.
The current crop of judges is absurdly partisan. This is no ordinary position, these judges are not regular Joes. Their opinions, their intellect, their fairness and open mindedness to address a case on its merits, is what their entire life time appointment is about. Being a Judge.
Read Alito's dissenting opinion on Murthy. He depicts (not interpret) the whole case as government censorship.
Mind you, this is the case where the government would have had to invent time travel to be culpable. > Plus, Facebook started targeting her content before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, page 3- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
If the court had a 50-50 split, then yes, your argument would carry merit. We can all disagree with court rulings, especially if we have experience in a domain.
Our opinions can be right or wrong. However I think everyone can agree that a skewed court will never be trusted when its majority votes along party lines.