Most proponents of Court expansion have focused on the possibility of an immediate increase in the number of Justices sitting on the Supreme Court. But as noted in public testimony before the Commission, proposals for Court expansion need not involve congressional action to expand the Court all at once.[106] Congress could enact a law providing for the expansion of the Supreme Court over time. For example, the Court could be increased by one Justice during each four-year presidential term until the Court reached some maximum size (say, thirteen members). Alternatively, the Court could be expanded by two Justices immediately, followed by two more Justices after an intervening presidential election. Proponents of expansion note that, though the longstanding convention has been for the Court to have nine members, it is possible for a high court to be productive and functional with significantly more than nine Justices. They note that other jurisdictions have larger courts that function efficiently and collegially, and that countries other than the United States have tended to settle on more than nine seats and have not necessarily maintained an odd number of seats on their high bench.[107]
The table below puts the U.S. Supreme Court in context with other constitutional courts.
| 7 Judges | Australia |
| 9 Judges | Canada, United States |
| 10 Judges | Chile |
| 11 Judges | France, South Africa |
| 12 Judges | Belgium, Ireland, Spain, United Kingdom |
| 14 Judges | Austria, South Korea |
| 15 Judges | Italy, Japan |
| 16 Judges | Germany, Sweden |
| 18 Judges | Denmark |
B. The Case Against Packing the Supreme Court
Opponents of efforts to expand—or “pack”—the Court at this time hold a range of views. Some critics of the calls for expansion regard the recent nominations to the Court as appropriate reflections of electoral outcomes and as fully consistent with constitutional processes and historical Senate practice.[108] They view the Court’s changing doctrine as
