To be fair, I don’t quite understand the reasoning on why more judges should be added.

If we have 19 judges and 10 are conservative then we are in the same situation as now.

If we have 19 judges and 10 are liberal, we are in the opposite situation but the other side is making the argument “there should be more judges”

In a representative democracy there will be times that a certain side doesn’t get what they want but that is not a reason to rewrite the rules to improve the chances of a particular view being more represented. The spirit of rule changing is how we got things like gerrymandering.

While I know that people don’t like this opinion but just because people don’t like the conservative or liberal judges doesn’t mean those judges have any less of a claim on the position they hold. The courts views on issues ebbs and flows over decades.

If citizens take issue with the current justices on the court, they need to hold the incumbent politicians accountable that approved the justices to be there.

In my view, it's a stop gap measure. The real issue is the lifetime appointments. We just had one president choose 3 justices, who all get lifetime appointments. That is beyond insane, and if packing the courts right now will help alleviate that imbalance I think it should be advocated for. Of course in the long term we will want term limits, or maybe some sort of rotation system, but for now I think that's the most politically effective way forward.