This isn’t big news, it’s little news, because it’s not going anywhere in this session of Congress.
Even if it passes the House, it’ll hit a wall in the Senate, where at least 3 Democratic senators oppose abolishing the filibuster, and probably several more are unwilling to tinker with the Supreme Court.
From a philosophical standpoint I have no problem with it. America isn’t a conservative-majority country, the court’s rightwing tilt doesn’t represent the American people, and the conservatives have already produced a number of atrocious decisions (e.g., Citizens United; gun rights; gerrymandering).
Moreover, the Republicans obtained that judicial power by brute political force. That entitles Democrats to do the same thing. Everything should be on the table — term limits, expanding the court, whatever works to make the court worthy of our democracy.
But it won’t happen with the slim congressional majorities that Democrats have right now. Read the story here and here.
Just because one party does something using blunt tactics does not entitle the other party to do the same. The court and courts are frankly conservative institutions in how they operate. Judges by and large are not wild eyed ideologues, and for the most part put the Constitution and law before politics. Even if the court gets packed it doesn’t mean the court will make decisions that will delight the liberal left. Odd things can happen when a justice becomes one of the Supremes, and no longer bound by precedent and able to establish or reestablish a precedent. [This comment has been edited.]
What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.