Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor and leading liberal critic of the Supreme Court's conservative majority, has published a post arguing that court expansion is the wrong response to the court's flaws. He poses four questions that proponents must answer, including how to avoid a race to the bottom and how to prevent further erosion of public confidence in the Court.
Vladeck warns that packing the court could permanently undermine judicial review as an institution. The author of the Reason piece, who has made similar criticisms, agrees. He adds that alternatives such as banning gerrymandering and enacting a binding ethics code could address some concerns without destroying judicial review.
Both acknowledge that if the goal is a sweeping reversal of recent jurisprudence, there may be no quick alternative to expansion. But they argue the costs outweigh any benefits, and that packing would likely make it harder to constrain unconstitutional actions by other branches. The author also notes that non-packing rationales for increasing the court's size are mostly weak.