Basically you made a subjective judgement about stodgy old guys in robes getting in the way of a champion of the people, and thus all bets are off on abiding by the Constitution.

FDR was not just negotiating. He tried to pack the court, and fortunately ran into a brick wall of opposition. That wasn’t negotiating. He did have to look for other alternatives. Within the Constitutional guardrails.

I’m all for term limits for SC justices. But I’m not for leaping over Constitutional guardrails to get there. Those unelected ideologues, or old clowns in robes, are the ultimate, final arbiters of disagreements in this country. A large chunk of the country will always disagree with their controversial decisions, but our willingness to be bound by them is probably the most important adhesive holding the country together, and the thing that keeps us from resorting to guns to resolve our differences.

That’s the essential point missed by those who violently stormed the Capitol to prevent final election certification when their efforts in court failed, and by those Trumpies who think those people need to get a pass. Certainly imo, it has never been more important to emphasize that power of the judiciary, and that even a president who carried 46 states has to abide by it. No matter what you think of the old guys in robes lawfully delegated that authority under the Constitution.