Curbing fails
Purcell ’21 [Johnna F.; Spring; JD Candidate at Cornell Law School, B.A in Political Science and Global and International Studies from The Schreyer Honors College at the Pennsylvania State University; Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, “A Switch in Time to Destroy Nine,” 30 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 611]
These plans to add seats to the court are appealing for several reasons. First, these plans are much simpler than other proposals. 148While other initiatives may require a constitutional amendment or broader coalition building, this plan would only require that Democrats take control of the legislative and executive branches long enough to implement it. 149Second, this plan directly responds to the political tactics that Republicans have used over the past decade. Republicans have packed the federal courts. 150Playing a game of constitutional hardball, Democrats could respond by packing the Court. 151Finally, this plan will foster positive outcomes for its supporters. If Democrats do not change the composition of the Supreme Court, the Republican-controlled Court may be able to overturn key pieces of legislation meant to expand democracy, 152even if Democrats regain control of legislative and executive branches. 153
However, this plan does have flaws. First, it is a temporary fix to what may be a more pervasive problem of a judiciary too vulnerable to the political tides of the President and Congress. Moreover, this plan is criticized for just being another move in the game of constitutional hardball that Republicans will counter as soon as they gain power again. 154