First, some terms are negative and, no matter how much they’re used, never, at least in my ears, become positive. The phrase “going viral” is one. “Court packing” is another. I’m not a legal historian, but my understanding is that President Franklin Roosevelt proposed—admittedly, with some level of disingenuity—expanding the membership of the Supeme Court to assist aging justices hear cases and increase workload opportunities for the Court to hear more cases. “Court packing” was the critical term for the act, to suggest that his true motivation was to “pack” the Court with justices sympathetic to his political causes. So I’m not really a fan of using this phrase as a political rallying cry, as, I think, it’s a negative take. But maybe that ship has sailed, or maybe I’m idiosyncratic.

Second, it’s interesting to think about the procedural hurdles to clear. Expanding the Court requires legislative from the House and the Senate, including abolishing or surviving the legislative filibuster, and a presidential signature, followed by nominees from the president confirmed by the Senate. It’s a several stage process that takes all of government. It’s entirely achievable, of course, but it’s worth considering that the process may take some time.

Third, if “court packing” is the express goal—bringing on justices to the Court sympathetic to the expanding party’s political views—I wonder about the next question, the number of justices. In the event that a “conservative” jurist (for lack of a better descriptor) replaces the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the “median” justice on the Court (again, imperfect as it may be) may well be someone like Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Currently, it might be deemed Chief Justice John Roberts. Before that, it was Justice Anthony Kennedy. Those are fairly significant moves in the last couple of years.

Replacing a sitting justice with one at the other end of the ideological spectrum is essentially a two-step move: subtracting a vote on one end, and adding a vote on the other. So any “court packing” requires two justices to “make up” for a one-justice switch. (And of course there’s no requirement for an even number of justices.”) If left-of-center parties expand the Court to eleven and secure two more Supreme Court justices, the median justice shifts back to Chief Justice Roberts. If they expand to thirteen and secure four more justices (and four more confirmation hearings!), the median justice shifts to, say, Justice Stephen Breyer or Justice Elena Kagan (or maybe one of the newly-confirmed justices). Fifteen, and move it farther still.

In short, another important question is what one wants to achieve in “court packing.” One might want to restore “balance.” One might want to move the “median” vote. One might say, “they got three in the last four years, we want three.” Whatever it might be, there are political arguments that would need to be raised, then legislation to be drafted.

I confess, I think it’s exceedingly unlikely that “court packing” occurs for any number of reasons. But if it does, these are the questions that come to mind—and I’m sure some others have thought more deeply about them before, but I plead mostly ignorance on that point!