An interesting idea
Sen. Grassley wants to hold a national dialogue on the role of the Supreme Court. I loosely knew Grassley back 30 years ago, and thought little of him, but maybe we've both grown in that time. I think the idea worthwhile.
I mean, the traditional image of the Court is that which CJ Roberts espoused in his confirmation hearings, just an umpire calling balls and strikes. The reality has become far different. Can we speak of baseball umpires as having liberal and conservative wings? Recent Terms have given us rulings that (1) when the Framers used the term State "legislatures," they meant something other than, you know, legislatures, (2) a statutory provision expressly denominated a "penalty" is not a penalty, but a tax (or was it the other way round? I lose track of these redefinitions) and (3) if it was a tax, it was not a tax for purposes of the statute that says a court cannot enjoin collection of a tax, the taxpayer must pay it under protest and seek its return.
And of course in the field of the right to arms, we've seen a minority of the Court (but within one vote of becoming a majority) do things to the 2nd and 14th Amendments that were unspeakable, for no better reason than that they, personally, think the framers had bad ideas in this arena.