That this essay is a progressive writing to progressives is not, I assume, in contravention of any Persuasion rules -- I assume that the goal here is to promote a certain kind of political *process*, regardless of outcomes.

Still, that's no excuse for the inflammatory (and false) language it uses: The implication that the Trump appointees are unqualified, that the "conservative majority" (more on that in a moment) is "ill-gotten", and the general conclusion that, if the Court fails to produce the desired outcomes, *then* pack it -- essentially vitiating the claim that the Court should weigh in on politics from the outside, rather than replace the Legislature or adjudicate-to-order.

Add to this the obliviousness to the fact that it's the "conservative" Justices who tend to vote according to their understanding of the Law, rather than their socio-political leanings (as evidenced by the independence of their votes) and it's the "progressives" who vote in lock-step on socio-political issues, and the essay becomes something that doesn't seem to belong in Persuasion.

(And, just because it's something about which I know a little, the insult to Netanyahu -- while it would find ample support in Haaretz -- betrays a lack of awareness of the differences between the US and Israeli Supreme Courts.)