I don't back that move.  Here's why: 1)  It would still be an odd number so you would likely still end up with one loss potentially swinging the majority vote.  Same gridlock.  The only benefit I can see is that the greater the numbers, the more likely this is some space in between and possibly the court becomes less clearly ideological.  To an extent, it's already that way with both Roberts and Kavanaugh going against fairly obvious conservative positions on some votes this year.  But . . . 2) Expansion of Supreme Court numbers is exactly what I saw in Venezuela when Chavez used the aperture of the "Constituente" to have an entire new Constitution drafted.  That included an expansion of the number of justices, which was really just  power play.  Because he was in power at the the time, he packed that new group entirely with loyalists.  At that point, ANY constitutional challenge to his emboldening autocracy was put down by that court, who really became a rubber stamp of him.  If this happened in the US, you'd either get a massive liberal court from Biden appointments or you'd get a massive conservative court of Trump appointees.  Wherever it starts is where it would be for 20-30 years - not really a fair proposition to either party.   In any event, it would take a Constitutional amendment (I think? - maybe I'm wrong on that), and good luck getting 2/3 of the states to ratify that, no matter which party is in power at the time.  I am surprised at just how much politics can be conducted by fiat:  things like Harry Reid's "nuclear option" or Mitch McConnell refusing to put Merrick Garland to a vote (then turning around and talking about putting RBGs replacement to vote in an even shorter time - clearly hypocrisy).   I do think that because of that obvious hypocrisy, there is a chance that enough Republicans defect so as to not have a vote until the next administration.  Some won't state out that territory until they have to, wanting to see if DT closes in the polls and it becomes a moot point. Way back in the middle of the 2nd Obama term, I had a conversation with a college buddy, who is now a law professor at GWU and knew RBG.  I told him that given her age at the time (over 80) she should have retired then because the "slim" chance of a Trump victory could really mess up balance on the court for years.   I stand by that position.  It was almost a kind of selfish act on her part.   She might have taken a cue from Sandra Day O'Connor on this one.