Hi, this is Christina Cauterucci from Slate. The what next team is out this week, so I'm

rerunning a few of my favorite episodes. Today, you'll hear Mark Joseph Stern talk to Mary

Harris about the case for court packing, a hot topic in Democratic politics right now.

The episode first aired in late March, and Mark convinced the heck out of me. He talks

about why nine is a pretty random number of Supreme Court justices, and he says there's

a decent historical precedent for adding more. Maybe he'll convince you too.

Enjoy.

Can we count up just like how many people have started talking about changing how many

justices are on the Supreme Court? Because the list is getting longer by the week, right?

It's getting longer and it's not just cranks anymore.

Mark Joseph Stern covers the Supreme Court for Slate.

We have Pete Buttigieg, the presidential candidate, Mayor Pete of South Bend.

We have Kirsten Gillibrand, a Kamala Harris, has floated it. Those are big names. Those are not

redditors who are resistance moms freaking out.

You can hear it in Mark's voice. He's all in for this idea. It's called court packing,

adding extra seats to the Supreme Court to make sure it is politically balanced.

Right now, that means more liberal, frankly. Okay, Mark, you work in the Supreme Court.

Where are we going to put these extra justices? Are we cleaning out a broom closet

in the Supreme Court for them? Where are they going to go?

I have been thinking about that for so long.

And I just don't know because the bench right now is perfectly calibrated for nine justices.

There's three segments for three justices each. So I think you could probably squeeze the

...