If the Supreme Court were to be expanded, I think it should absolutely be written into law exactly how the number of justices is to be determined, and any changes would need to be approved by a supermajority in order to pass - no "nuclear option" to get rid of that requirement. I'm pretty sure when the court was changed to 9, that was to align with the number of federal appellate courts at the time. If that was the reason 9 was the chosen number, then it would make sense to make sure the number of justices continues to match the number of appellate courts, and that would remove the political gamesmanship from the matter entirely. But in this moment, the number of federal appellate courts is 13 - 4 more, and (coincidentally) precisely the number of judges people discuss adding when they are talking about "packing the courts" right now, so this moment in time is going to be particularly problematic to try and get that passed.
I support expanding or contracting the court whenever the metric used to determine the number of justices fluctuates. Alternatively, I would also support putting a law on the books that just flat-out sets the maximum number of justices that can sit on the SC, period. And in either case, I'd also support making sure that however the number of justices is determined, it requires a 2/3 majority to even consider making a change to that law. Basically, my support would be to close the loophole that allows this to even be an issue that can be weaponized by partisan fuckery.
Also, if the appellate court thing were to become law, I wouldn't want any single administration to choose all 4 new justices to be seated. Make it one additional justice per presidential term, while also allowing the sitting president to replace justices that retire or pass away like they already do.
With all that said, I'm voting yes in the poll, but with the clarifications stated above.
Poll