One possible effect: The SCOTUS might become even more politically radioactive with POTUS campaigns being waged in light of the date certain of the expiration of each Justice's term. That might lead to the candidates promising even more emphatically to name to SCOTUS someone LIKE (fill in the blank) meaning (wink, wink) to appoint exactly that person. In the already politically poisoned era of today's ultra-partisanship, Demonrat candidates would promise to appoint specific anti-constitutional and particularly social issue revolutionaries and wimpy Republicans would promise not a Scalia or Rehnquist or Thomas but "moderate" social issue revolutionaries committed to constitutional degeneration on a somewhat slower boat.
Think what Gerald Ford would have done to SCOTUS and the Constitution if he had had more appointments. He already gave us John Paul Stevens. What if he had the chance to appoint two more who would likely have been general counsel to some megabucks corporation. What is the bid for Gerald Ford's NEXT SCOTUS nomination? Big Oil bids $______ and gasoline and heating costs rise accordingly if Big Oil wins. Big Pharma wants no restraints on escalating drug prices and no expiration dates on patents and no serious regulation by FDA. Big Pharma bids more than Big Oil. Thats where Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell run granny's wheelchair off the cliff. All of them are outbid by Big Transnational (perhaps funded also by foreign interests with no love for the constitution either and every desire to pick the bones of our economy). Big Transnational WINS and we lose. No jobs left but those of a decreasing number of government bureaucrats and welfare for everyone else until we die and get out of the way of Brave New Corporation World. As we die off, their taxes will also decline. But, hey, why should there be any bidding at all? The foregoing interests and many others can join forces to BUY SCOTUS and the other fedcourts and establish unresponsive and unelected oligarchy forever.
A successful POTUS candidate would then claim the mandate of the people and of the Iron Law of 50% + 1 for his SCOTUS candidates. People KNEW whom he/she/it would appoint and voted accordingly, you see.
Would a retired justice (by term limit) be eligible for a later appointment as some term-limited governors are? Then the justices with an eye ever peeled to make a future restoration of the power and the glory of being part of a nine member ongoing constitutional convention without need of approval by either Congress or the states, will nakedly campaign on the bench to be remembered for future appointments. They will do this by issuing outrageously idiosyncratic opinions (see Blackmun, Herod, and Roe vs. Wade. It was a 7-2 decision but no one much remembers the specifics of the opinions of the other six babykillers).
AND the mere fact that we think of Demonrat or Republican judges is a loss. Felix Frankfurter was appointed by FDR to be a revolutionary. By the end, he was a conservative. JFK appointed Byron "Whizzer" White, former college football star and IIRC an NFL player, and he was at worst a "moderate" Democrat and voted against Roe vs. Wade and every other abortion-enabling decision. John Paul Stevens had a pro-life record on the 7th Circuit before becoming a turncoat on SCOTUS.
Anthony (Sandra Day O')Kennedy WAS a pro-lifer when appointed and had a long track record to prove it, including nine children of his own, until seduced by Lawrence Tribe to stop voting with Scalia. If he wanted more than twelve years on the SCOTUS, he would have told Tribe to fry ice because he is otherwise too conservative for a Deon appointment and would have permanently alienated too many Republicans by voting for the babies to be killed by the millions.
This idea is not ready for prime time. Congress can expand SCOTUS membership but that has obvious drawbacks as a precedent. Congress has the existing power to remove fed court jurisdiction over chosen topics altogether. That also has its problems. Imagine POTUS Comrade Bernie enacting HIS economic nightmare and Congress removing fedcourt jurisdiction over property confiscation. THEY can play this game too. I have always believed that judicial review was a power grab by John Marshall, then CJ and the dead hand of the discredited money-grubbing Federalist past. I think that is where the problem really resides but I have little hope for reform.
Thanks for your comprehensive post. I believe you’re dead on the money regarding Marshall. I think SCOTUS has been more of a menace than a help since its founding.