This SCOTUS case has no constitutional significance, it's all about statutory construction.
The significance is in the makeup of the majority: the three liberals plus the three most recent appointees. (You could also make the argument that the significance is the three dissenters are old and this was a technology case, but that's not my point here.)
And this on the heels of several unanimous opinions.
I don't see how any argument for more sitting justices can be made without nakedly saying "So we can win". We currently have a court that has ideological differences but those differences are not interfering with the administration of justice. To put additional players on the team just to achieve an ideological victory is not only wrong but is just flat unnecessary.
The significance is in the makeup of the majority: the three liberals plus the three most recent appointees. (You could also make the argument that the significance is the three dissenters are old and this was a technology case, but that's not my point here.)
And this on the heels of several unanimous opinions.
I don't see how any argument for more sitting justices can be made without nakedly saying "So we can win". We currently have a court that has ideological differences but those differences are not interfering with the administration of justice. To put additional players on the team just to achieve an ideological victory is not only wrong but is just flat unnecessary.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
