An NPR piece from earlier today got me thinking about this. They brought up the point that the size of the SCOTUS is not fixed in the Constitution; theoretically congress can change it anyway they see fit and they have done so for blatantly political purposes in the past.
The Federalist congress of 1780 dropped the court size from 6 (where it began) to 5 in order to keep the incoming president Jefferson from getting an appointment.
Jefferson's Republican congress reversed that and then upped the count to 7 to give Jefferson two extra appointments.
The count was upped to 9 to give Andrew Jackson two extra seats.
The court eventually reached a record high of 10 justices around the time of the civil war so that Lincoln could guarantee pro-North, anti-slavery rulings, but was dropped back to 9 to keep Andrew Johnson from getting any appointments.
The last attempt to change the court was made by FDR in 1937 when he tried to give himself a whopping 6 additional appointments! That somewhat overzealous effort was shot down by Congress.

So, the real compelling aspect of the NPR piece was that the Democratic congress could grant a democratic president (if there is one) as many additional appointments as needed to guarantee a friendly supreme court...which just sounds kinda scary to me, no matter which party does it.

So what would think if, let's say, Obama wins in '08 and the Dems in congress move to raise the number of justices to 11 in order to achieve a more "balanced" supreme court? Is that a move you could support? What if justice Stephens (the oldest member) drops out before '09 and Bush gets another right-leaning appointment?
Or would you be exceptionally opposed to such a move?

Is this an oversight in the US Constitution that potentially could remove the balance of power between the branches?
Or is this part of that balance?

First off, the Democrats raising the number of justices to 11 and appointing two more will not achieve a more "balanced" court; it will become a left-leaning court. Secondly, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the court has to be "balanced" because there shouldn't be any ideological leanings on it one way or the other. If the justices are doing their job and following what the Constitution says and not basing their decisions on foreign laws or using the interpretation that the Constitution is a "living document" then most decisions should be close to unanimous and there shouldn't be all of these 5 to 4 split rulings. Their personal beliefs should not have any bearing in their rulings. Clearly, this is not currently the case.

Furthermore, I think if Congress starts screwing with the size of the Supreme Court based on which party controls Congress just to get their ideology through that would be extremely dangerous to the republic. It would take away the conviction and dignity that the Supreme Court is viewed with by the public because they would no longer be perceived as a body that is an independent arbiter of Constitutional justice, but rather a politically biased chopping block. It would eliminate one of checks and balances against our government. Hugo Chavez has done this very thing in Venezuela and it's allowing him to get away with some pretty scary tactics against those who oppose him and the way he runs his country.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!

FDR, tried something like this and it failed miserably. Even though the court at the time was apparently being very partisan in their rulings, Congress didn't support the immensely popular FDR, his proposal to increase the number of S.C. members failed. So I doubt any president will be able to easily pass any stipulations or amendments to increase the number of Supreme Court justices.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Yes, FDR tried to make the cause that the older justices of the court could no longer handle their workload and suggested that he be allowed to appoint an additional, younger justice every time an existing justice turned 70 and chose not to retire. At the time of his proposal, 6 of the justices were already over 70, so, if his suggestion had been embraced by congress, he would immediately have been give half-a-dozen new appointments. Apparently even the until-that-point pro-FDR congress wasn't willing to swallow that.

Still, if the 87 year old Stevens drops out and gets replaced by another Alito-esque justice before '09 and a democratic takes the White House, I wonder if any democrats in congress will take a shot at upping to number of seats by one or two.

Well, the days of rubber stamping Bush's ultra conservative nominees are gone, Alito and Roberts could never get past the Senate we have today.

But if the Supreme Court makes some very unpopular rulings, Congress might find the "backbone" to try to play to the crowd, and add two justices.

But this would have to be some earth shattering stuff.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I don't think parties would seriously attempt it because it would really backfire at the polls. The last time it was successfully done was in the early days when the nation was trying to get its footing established as to its 'norms' and during a time of the most compelling circumstances to any nation's survival--national hazarded dissolution (the Civil War).

What FDR recognised following the backlash to his threat to stack the court, though, was that the SCOTUS and its backers were his best unwitting recruiters as they inflamed the public who were now of sufficient strength, knowledge, etc, to backlash against them (the previous generation was a soup of various immigrants without citizenship, had language barriers, etc. Their American children and grandchildren changed that dynamic and weren't going to tolerate for themselves what their forbearers had to endure). The SCOTUS with its rulings was Exhibit "A" for a call for voter backlash. By leaving the callous Robber Baron-supporting Social Darwinist SCOTUS alone, voter anger at the court and their supporters in Congress made FDR's case to sweep all those who were part of and served the rapacious elite who were unfairly making huge wealth on the backs of child labour, stripping their workers of any bargaining tools, allowing practices that reduced workers to serfs, refusing to provide safe conditions, driving down wages to peanuts with industry collusion on pay practices, etc. He won four terms and brought Congress into Democratic hands. This allowed time to change the court, gaining a trifecta. This also forced the GOP to temper its tune on these issues.

People, though, are naturally and rightly guarded against what they deem undue riggings and usurpation of power, even if the ginners and usurpers allege it is for the best interests of the nation. Experience shows such things wind up against their interests in the short or long term. Moreover, it's a threat to the people for exercising their voice, much the same as gerrymandering, wanting to manipulate and gin the electoral college so favourable states are kept 'winner take all' and dividing votes in split or unfavourable states, etc.

Myself, I'd see any types looking to unduly gin the system as a threat and would almost assuredly vote against them and/or oppose them, and if they succeeded to an extent where my ability to use the system for change is unduly hindered, even reject their legitimacy to rule.