For years, expanding the Supreme Court was dismissed as a fantasy among serious thinkers. But with the Court increasingly seen as a purely partisan institution, the idea has gained traction. A new Techdirt piece argues that modest expansion—adding two or four seats—would simply start an arms race, as each party would try to outdo the other.
The article suggests that a much larger expansion, to around 100 justices, might actually end the cycle. With that many seats, no single appointment would shift the Court's balance, reducing the incentive to fight over every vacancy. The source acknowledges this is a provocative take, but contends that the current dynamic is unsustainable.
Because there is only one source, the piece reflects that author's viewpoint rather than a consensus. The argument is explicitly speculative, but it frames the debate around what would actually deter partisan escalation, rather than what is politically feasible. Whether 100 justices is realistic is another question, but the underlying point is that the Court's legitimacy problem may require a structural fix, not just a temporary one.{