>> I personally hope we will pack the court. However as it would scare some people away, I dont want him to lose votes over it.
So, you are not above manipulating voters if needed, and you are not really outraged by R- senate, you just using it as a good talking point. I don’t think this is a great place to get extra votes for your candidate, I would prefer an intellectual discussion instead. So, to turn there, here are some thoughts. Not knowing much about the topic, I would appreciate corrections:
what is it about R- and D- judges? beyond political preferences, this seems to be an argument between “originalists” and “live constitution”. We have, l’havdil, similar attitudes. One seems to be, ironically, between teacher and student: R’ Eliezer saying that he only taught what he heard from his teachers, and R’ Akiva – the only one who ask R “Eliezer everything about magical cucumbers – who claimed that if he were in the time of death penalty, he found find all kind of excuses to exempt everyone.
Of course, this connection is not a proof of anything, as it matters what you are interpreting. Discussing why we should or should not expand on Hashem’s work is different from reasons to update a document written by a committee.
Back to the US. Originalists are treated currently as stubborn outliers who try to reach out back to outdated time, but of course they were there first, before the mahloket started. It seems that “living” idea corresponds to progressive era when it looked like new scientific methods can drastically improve society, even before population realizes “what is good for them”. This looks like a milder version of socialism that took over Eurasia. There is here somewhat primitive (from current point of view) idea that founders knew static science, like mechanics, and now we (progressives) learned wonderful new things like biology, evolution, etc and this analogy can be applied to social sphere.
I think Jews would more naturally agree with strict contractual view (we do often even interpret Brit with Hashem as a binding contract) – Constitution is a binding document that states signed, and you are welcome to update it via amendment process, allowing original signers, states, to exercise their rights as originally agreed upon. you are also welcome to change the whole process, again, via a new Constitution. With this line of thinking, it is unclear why we need “living” constitution. I am not treating fairly here (1) how expansive to treat certain terms and (2) what to do when there seems to be an intolerable injustice. Both of these issues need to be addressed, but I think they are overshadowed by liberal overreach, trying to pass anything they can through the courts when Courts were liberal.