To put it another way -- the next time Democrats control the Presidency, Senate, and House, they'll increase the Supreme Court to 13 or 15 seats, and it won't be a bigger deal than what happened to Garland. Or, at least, that seems like the least disruptive outcome.
This tweet is unavailable
1
1
3
Is that better than, say, staggered 10-year appointments, or just more feasible?
1
Replying to @djco
More feasible, since it doesn't require constitutional amendment, and ending lifetime tenure would. (I've also heard a suggestion of staggered 9- or 18-year terms to match up with the number of seats. But again, requires constitutional amendment.)

Oct 1, 2018 · 7:32 PM UTC

1
Replying to @davidbaron @djco
Also worth noting that FDR tried something similar in 1937 and it failed; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judici… . But the court today is being viewed as more of a partisan institution and thus commands less respect; the Garland nomination (and Kavanaugh) continues to move it that way.