On Thursday, Senate Democrats led by conspiracy enthusiast Sheldon Whitehouse and Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin will take the next step in its quest to reshape the judiciary by holding a Committee vote on the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. Because the radical Left doesn't like some of the decisions made since Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the Court, they have manufactured a crisis to provide cover for their attacks on the legitimacy of the Court. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out in remarks on the Senate floor last week:

The Supreme Court is not in crisis when it refuses to reliably and predictably advance Democrats’ priorities. The Court is not in crisis when it puts the text of our laws above politics.

Despite the final report of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court not endorsing court-packing, many on the Left see it as an opportunity to bring the issue to the forefront again. Two commissioners released an op-ed in the Washington Post following the release of the report titled, "The Supreme Court isn’t well. The only hope for a cure is more justices."

Last week, the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court approved its final report to be sent to President Joe Biden. Fox News reported:

The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court voted unanimously Tuesday in favor of approving its final report and sending it to President Biden's desk.

If you listened to the most recent meeting of President Biden’s Commission on the Supreme Court and knew nothing prior, the liberal “scholars” would have you convinced that the Supreme Court is hated by all Americans.  The reality is that the Judicial Branch is the most popular branch of the United State Government.  The real purpose of Biden's Judicial Commission is to undermine the judiciary's popularity and to further intimidate the current Supreme Court.  As Dan McLaughlin writes in National Review Online:

The Court-packing debate has cooled off for a while since prominent Democrats introduced legislation in April to pack the Court with new justices for nakedly partisan and ideological purposes. Democrats are happy to move the question offstage. Court-packing is a massively unpopular and dangerous proposal, just as it was in 1937. At the moment, Democrats don’t have the votes in the Senate to break a filibuster, and they do not appear to have 50 votes for passage, either. But they have not abandoned the implied threat that they might bring it back if they get a bigger Senate majority or if the Supreme Court does something they dislike enough.

On this day in 1937, the Senate put an end to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's court packing plan. Commentary from The Heritage Foundation explains:

Many Americans may have heard about how President Franklin Roosevelt’s proposed court-packing scheme failed in the 1930s. During Roosevelt’s first term, the Supreme Court struck down several laws enacted to address the Great Depression because they exceeded Congress’ power.

On Tuesday, the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States held its third meeting and 2nd round of hearings since being formed by President Joe Biden earlier this year. The meeting consisted of 6 panels of experts that commissioners questioned about various proposals for changes to the Court.  This one was much more partisan then the first two with progressive panelists making outrageous claims.  However, Harvard Professor Stephen Sachs summed up the commission well:

The public will see through efforts to recast court-packing as “court expansion,” jurisdiction-stripping as “jurisdiction channeling,” and so on. It will see through efforts to pursue short-term partisan payback under the guise of long-term reform. And because legitimacy is a two-way street, reforms that are not perceived by both sides as enhancing the courts’ legitimacy will never succeed in doing so.

Thursday's decisions by the Supreme Court were a major defeat for certain Democrat politicians and liberal activists. Yes, Obamacare was preserved in a 7-2 decision, and in another 9-0 decision, religious liberty was preserved. But liberal court packing activists lost yesterday. As the Committee for Justice wrote:

Consider the contrast between reality and Democrats' exaggerated predictions and fear mongering. Last fall, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senator after Democratic senator told stories of constituents who would suffer, if not die, were Barrett confirmed. She would provide the fifth "far right" vote for striking down the Affordable Care Act, they said, some of them implying that Barrett had promised President Trump to strike down the ACA in return for her nomination. . . .

Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed, but so much for closely divided far right decisions and constituents robbed of health insurance by a nefarious deal between Barrett and Trump. Instead, what we got today was a 7-2 rejection of the challenge to the ACA with Barrett in the majority, a unanimous and narrow decision protecting religious objections to same-sex marriage, and an overall picture of a moderate Court which will sometimes disappoint liberals, sometimes disappoint conservatives, and often the split the baby.

In his upcoming book The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics, United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer reflects upon the "authority of the Supreme Court—how that authority was gained and how measures to restructure the Court could undermine both the Court and the constitutional system of checks and balances that depends on it." 

And if Justice Breyer's motivation for writing the book wasn't easy enough to see from the book's description, "measures to restructure the Court" is Justice Breyer's way of calling out Democrats' efforts to – you guessed it – pack the court.  Justice Breyer's opinion on court-packing could not be any clearer:

“Proposals have been recently made to increase the number of Supreme Court justices,” [Justice] Breyer notes. “I aim to make those whose reflexive instincts may favor significant structural (or similar institutional) changes, such as forms of court-packing, think long and hard before embodying those changes in law.”

President Joe Biden's Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States met for the first time on Wednesday afternoon as calls for court packing and for Justice Breyer to retire increase. CBS News reports:

In its first meeting, which lasted less than 30 minutes, the commission's members were sworn in, and they adopted its bylaws. The group also laid out its schedule and structure. Over the next six months, the panel is set to meet six times, and in its next meeting, commissioners will hear testimony about Supreme Court reform.

A recent column for Bloomberg Law by two professors for advocating for the expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court is attempting to redefine court-packing yet again. The professors suggest that the Court should be expanded to 15 justices, but that this wouldn't technically qualify as court-packing because, under their scheme, most cases would only be heard by a panel of 5 justices:

Real reform is required, and for that we need a court of 15 justices, with the justices sitting in three panels of five judges on any normal case. On very important cases, the court could vote to sit all 15 justices together en banc.