Yeah, same with ending filibuster and other speculated tactics. I don't think you can close the door behind you without a constitutional amendment, which won't happen.

Yes, but each time diluting the power of the justices individually. Right now if you have one wacko justice who decides on the basis of political ideology instead of some of the established legal theories they have 11% of a say in things. Add another few justices who are relatively normal and the ability of the wacko to swing things into dangerous territory goes down. Even if the tit-for-tat tries to cram more wackos in you have to try to convince the Senate to let more and more obviously terribly choices through.

Sure but after a few decades of packing we'd eventually end up with a direct democracy where every adult citizen is a Supreme Court justice and the legislative branch would be sidestepped entirely. Seems better than our current system IMO.

There are good reasons to increase the size though, mainly it being one of the smallest Supreme Courts in the world.

Dems at least talk about taking money out of politics. McCain Feyngold was a big step in the right direction but IIRC SCOTUS shut that down hard.

It might take a little more than that to update the Judiciary Act of 1869 that defined the current number of justices on the court.