How is it literally undemocratic to pass a law that changes the number of justices on the supreme court? Congress has that explicit power. Or do you just feel very strongly about the number 9? In the end, if the country feels strongly enough against it, they won't give the WH, Senate and House to democrats.
I'm kind of on the fence, but I don't think it's too extreme or would cross any line that hasn't been crossed already - I just think if Democrats sweep they should put serious effort into making a less divided country.
On the other hand, I think it's really silly to argue that the court should lean one way for basically a generation because the last judge happened to die in September instead of Dec or later.
Here, let RBG explain it to you -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pkwfITbEuMWe've had 9 justices for over a century, changing the balance of the court because you want to legislate policy from the bench is undemocratic. The judicial branch should be independent, and adding justices changes that. You seem to have this notion that if government can make changes that are constitutional, that it can't be classified as undemocratic. This isn't the case, example -- packing the court.
And here's Joe Biden telling you why it was a bad idea when FDR tried to court pack -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_lBVmrLfeQI don't think you should be on the fence about this. Court packing isn't a new idea, but people advocating for court packing is a knee jerk reaction. The world isn't ending because ACB is on the court. Abortion isn't going away either.