Congressman Brad Finstad recently joined the fray of the judicial reform debate, framing the current Democratic push to expand the Supreme Court as a radical assault on American institutions. In a public statement, Finstad claimed that while Democrats seek to pack the court to advance a political agenda, his own party stands as the bulwark of constitutional integrity. This narrative, while convenient for a campaign cycle, collapses under the weight of the last decade’s legislative record. The reality of our current judicial crisis is not found in the threat of future expansion, but in the calculated erosion of norms that allowed the Senate to treat lifetime appointments as spoils of war rather than civic duties. The stakes of this argument transcend simple partisan bickering because they touch upon the core legitimacy of the third branch of government. When the mechanisms of appointment are viewed as a game of speed and delay rather than a process of deliberation, the public loses faith in the neutrality of the law itself. Congressman Finstad’s rhetoric suggests a sudden concern for the sanctity of the bench, yet it overlooks the fact that the current six-three conservative majority was built through the exact type of gamesmanship he now decries. The structural integrity of the Court is indeed at risk, but the damage began when the rules for confirmation became flexible enough to bend for political convenience. Evidence for this shift is found in the contradictory logic applied to two different election cycles. In 2016, the Republican-led Senate refused to grant a hearing to Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee, arguing that the American people should have a voice in the selection during an election year. This blockade lasted nearly a year, leaving a seat vacant for 293 days under the guise of a newfound democratic principle. However, as noted in recent critiques of Finstad’s position, this principle vanished in 2020. Following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the same leadership rushed to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett just days before the presidential election, discarding the very precedent they had established four years prior. This maneuvering is exactly what critics point to when they dismiss Finstad’s lectures on radicalism. According to a post on the Congressman’s own social media feed, found at https://www.facebook.com/RepFinstad/posts/while-democrats-want-to-pack-the-supreme-court-to-advance-their-radical-politica/1028936136626779, he characterizes efforts to rebalance the court as political gamesmanship. Yet, to the neutral observer, the game was started long ago by those who held the gavel. By blocking a nominee for a year and then seating another in a week, the Senate leadership signaled that the calendar is only as relevant as the party in power allows it to be. This inconsistency does more to damage the Court than any proposed legislation could, as it reveals the bench to be a prize of political timing rather than a body of impartial jurists. The history of the filibuster and judicial confirmations shows a steady march toward this brink. For decades, the filibuster served as a pressure valve, requiring a degree of bipartisan consensus for any lifetime appointment. That valve was dismantled piece by piece—first by Democrats for lower court judges in 2013, and then by Republicans for Supreme Court nominees in 2017. These choices created the environment where a simple majority can reshape the law for a generation. Finstad frames the Democratic response as an unprecedented escalation, but in a system where the rules are changed whenever they become an obstacle, escalation is the only logical outcome for a party that feels the game has been rigged against them. The strongest counterargument to Court expansion is the fear of a permanent cycle of growth. If one party adds four seats today, the other will add six tomorrow, eventually rendering the Supreme Court a bloated, meaningless assembly. This is a valid concern. We should not want a bench that grows every time the White House changes hands. However, the current defenders of the status quo cannot claim the moral high ground when they built the current majority by abandoning the very traditions they now pretend to cherish. You cannot demand that your opponents follow the rules of the road after you have spent a decade driving through the red lights. If Congressman Finstad and his colleagues truly wish to protect the Supreme Court from radicalism, they must offer more than just opposition to Democratic proposals. They must offer a return to consistent standards that apply regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Until then, the cries of political gamesmanship will ring hollow to a public that watched the goalposts move in 2016 and 2020. The question is no longer whether the Court will be politicized, but whether any of the actors involved have the courage to stop the cycle before the institution loses its remaining shreds of public trust.