Remaking the highest court into a representative body is a kind of protection from the executive branch, not a submission. I am fine with 17 justices, or 33, or more.
At some point this becomes unwieldy and unreliable for the executive to try to manipulate, and therein lies the protection.
It’s too bad the Republicans didn’t seat Garland, and now they’ve made a ridiculous appointment of an unqualified jurist who openly opposes one of our essential foundations: freedom from tyranny of Christian laws (and other establishments of religion). It’s too bad the Republicans undermined trust in an important institution. But anyway, they did it. No use crying about it now.
You know, it’s fine if we have laws that match well with Christian values, but the moment we make laws out of Christian values, simply because they are Christian values and we wish to impose them on everyone, we are in unconstitutional, traitorous territory. The Supreme Court is now broken in this way. Lay blame however you wish; it’s irrelevant.
We must be able to trust that the Supreme Court will never support the establishment of Christian laws, and will never support the accumulation of executive power beyond control of the people. We can no longer trust it to that degree.
If the people want to change the Constitution, fine, do that. That would be handled by Congress, though. It’s not the Supreme Court’s role to interpret the Constitution in such contorted ways that it is effectively changed. They cannot nullify our freedom from the tyranny of a state religion and freedom from the tyranny of a king. Only Congress (the people) can change our Constitution.
And so, some action must be taken to restore non-partisanship to the Supreme Court, and protect it against future presidents. Pack it, then pack it again, then again. It’s better to have an inefficient, unwieldy but non-partisan and democratically protected institution, than one that is at risk of making unconstitutional rulings.