The Supreme Court Doesn't Have To Suck: Let's Reform It

Former President Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court by increasing its size from 9 to 15 - in order to pass his economically progressive New Deal - is often heavily criticized by conservatives. And even though I'm a progressive, I agree that this kind of behavior is unacceptable, as it effectively gives the President full control over the Court, which defeats its entire point: being an independent third branch of government that is less prone to sudden change than the Presidency and Congress. A system where a majority can completely reshape the Supreme Court in an instance is definitely not how any rational human being would want the Court to function, otherwise you might as well just let the Senate and President decide directly whether something is constitutional or not. So why don't we just amend the Constitution to make "court packing" illegal?

It wouldn't be as hard as you may think it is. Instead of the President and Senate appointing a Justice whenever they deem it fit, just add to the text that there is exactly one Justice appointed during the term of each Congress (i.e. 2 years), regardless of how many Justices retired or died that year. That gives each President 2 Justices per term.

Without such a rule, politics becomes a kind of "Roulette of Death", where if a lot of Justices die in the term of one President, but only very few or none in the term of another, then just by sheer coincidence, one President shapes history a lot more than another one. Even though this randomly more powerful President is obviously not "a wiser statesman" that deserves to have more influence, just by the virtue if the fact that more Justices died during his term.

Furthermore, I actually think that the 60 vote filibuster for Supreme Court Justices isn't that bad an idea, but I'm sort of split on that matter. If we want to, we can also add to the Amendment that the Senate has to approve the new Justice with 60% of its members, something that isn't written in the Constitution right now and has only ever been done because of tradition. Another thing that could help would be to introduce a retirement age of 65 or 70 years, but that would also not the most important part of this Amendment. I'm guessing some people will disagree, arguing that lifetime appointments give the Justices more independence, and that's fine, the main part of this reform would be to fix appointments to one every 2 years.

What do you think about this idea to make the Supreme Court less prone to sudden change?