How to Fix The Supreme Court Without Blowing it Up: A Critique

I read "How to Fix The Supreme Court Without Blowing it Up" from Washington Monthly, which is where Noah Berlatsky laid out the issues he sees with the Supreme Court and a few proposed ways in which it could be fixed. He writes for a liberal audience, as it's written on a left leaning blog, who most likely share the same views as him on the issue of a power imbalance. Berlatsky himself is very left leaning and he's written very liberal articles on several different sites. However, in this article, he seems to portray a more centralist view. While still left leaning and explaining liberal views, he describes solutions that wouldn't hurt the Republicans (in fact one could even give them more power potentially). He appears to at least be trying to remain impartial, while still relaying his beliefs. This causes me to see his credibility seems as reliable, as he seems fairly knowledgeable on leftist politics yet isn't trying to claim that his opinions are anything other than that.

His main argument is that the Supreme Court is imbalanced, and will only remain this way in the foreseeable future. This is because Republicans only retire when a Republican President is in power, and Democrats only retire when Democratic Presidents are in power. However, at the moment, Republicans seem to hold a much higher degree of power in regards to the balancing of the system. It's because of this that Berlatsky claims that many Democrats are starting to petition for a change in the system. In a country where power is supposed to be equal and unbiased, it doesn't seem right that one political party gets to hold it and call the shots. Berlatsky then lays out a couple of different ways in which the Supreme Court could be fixed: from simply implementing a one judge per term rule to a constitutional amendment.

Overall, I agree with his message. I do believe that the government should be more balanced in the way it functions, and one party shouldn't be able hold all the power in their hands. An unbalanced world is a dangerous one. I don't know what would go into changing the rules for creating more harmony, but I don't think it's an argument that people should balk at or even just jump on immediately. Because to create a balanced system, it requires communication from both sides. Otherwise, it's not "fixing" it, it's just wrapping it up in duct tape and saying "that'll last." Until it doesn't.