Below, I’m including links to some other pieces, beyond Jamelle’s, that have helped me grapple with the topic.

For more …

Jacob Hale Russell, an assistant law professor at Rutgers, in Time magazine: “The battle over court packing is being fought on the wrong terms. Americans of all political stripes should want to see the court expanded, but not to get judicial results more favorable to one party. Instead, we need a bigger court because the current institutional design is badly broken. … The right size is much, much bigger. Three times its current size, or 27, is a good place to start.”

David Faris, in The Washington Post: “While unprecedented, court packing would be a clearly constitutional move by an elected majority. After all, previous presidents and Congresses have changed the size of the court.”

The Guardian’s Moira Donegan: “It is time for the Democrats to drop the pretense that the judiciary is apolitical, and admit that no progressive agenda can be enacted or maintained without a drastic overhaul of the federal judiciary. … Many federal judges are thoughtful, fair-minded people who take their mandate to faithfully interpret the law seriously. But many others are all but open servants to the political agenda of the Republican Party, issuing opinions that distort the law in near-unrecognizable ways.”

Vox’s Dylan Matthews: Packing the court could lead to “more games of constitutional hardball and enables a future president to push through legislation that makes him and his allies basically impossible to dislodge from power, with a packed Supreme Court that is unwilling and unable to stop him. That, roughly, is what has happened in Poland, Hungary, Honduras, Venezuela, and Turkey. It could happen here too.”

Julian Zelizer, in an Op-Ed in The Times: “The political risks for such a move by Democrats would be enormous, and potentially long-lasting. … If liberals want to change the direction of the courts, they should do more to replicate the kind of long-term projects their opponents have undertaken since the 1980s to nurture judicial talent and create a deep pool for future appointments.”

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their book “How Democracies Die”: “Democratic institutions depend crucially on the willingness of governing parties to defend them — even against their own leaders. The failure of Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme and the fall of Nixon were made possible when key members of the president’s own party … decided to stand up and oppose him.”

If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.