• Living abroad with only what fits in a carry-on has changed my definition of "enough."
• I no longer buy "just in case" stuff that rarely gets used, and I've found joy in a simple wardrobe.
• Ironically, the more I appreciate the things we own, the less attached I've become to them.

I'll admit it: I love shopping and the thrill of getting something new.

But ever since my husband and I started doing extended stays in Paris and other cities throughout Europe, I've surprised myself with how little I actually need.

We never check luggage because it's such a hassle, so whenever we get home after living out of carry-on suitcases for three months, I'll look around our apartment, open my closet, and think, "Wow, I forgot about most of this stuff."

Even though I'm a lifelong declutterer and keep our space tidy and organized, I've come to realize that getting by with only what fits in a carry-on has changed my definition of "enough."

Having fewer clothes makes getting dressed easier

It's kind of ironic that going to Paris, the fashion capital of the world, is where I've ended up with the smallest wardrobe. But as it turns out, having fewer options saves me a lot of mental energy and has made me more creative and intentional about what I wear.

I pack versatile pieces that work together so I can mix and match, rewear the same few pairs of pants, and do laundry every week. Even winter trips, when I have to pack bulkier clothes, have proven that I can get by with much less than I ever thought possible.

I have dozens of sweaters at home since I'm a bit of a collector, but all I really need are just a few Quince cashmere fisherman turtlenecks.

I also love jewelry, hats, and sunglasses, and usually have multiple options based on my mood. But being away for months at a time has made me realize that I'm perfectly fine with having just a few accessories to rotate through.

Whenever I get back from one of our trips, I end up editing my closet because I realize there's so much I don't wear. Yes, it's nice to have all my clothes and accessories, but it also gets easier each time to give stuff away to friends, family, neighbors, or donation centers.

I've stopped buying so many 'just in case' items

It's easy to imagine all sorts of scenarios where I might need certain things, especially when traveling. (Should I pack a pair of heels in case we go to an ultra-fancy dinner? Or what if I suddenly need that scarf I haven't worn in five years?)

News flash: I've never needed something I didn't pack. It's a lesson that has made me less likely to shop on impulse.

I still love going on a T.J. Maxx run and filling up a cart while browsing my favorite sites. However, before I make a purchase, I ask myself if it's something I'll genuinely use or just something that I might hypothetically need one day.

If it doesn't pass the reality check, I don't buy it.

I'm much more thoughtful about what I bring into our apartment

Because we're on the move so much, being at home feels even more comforting. I love that our space is decorated with objects that spark joy, but over the last few years, I've become less interested in accumulating stuff.

Instead, I find myself appreciating what we already have — from our shelves full of books and framed photos of our family and travels to my houseplants that our wonderful neighbors take care of while we're away.

Funnily enough, though, the more I appreciate the things we own, the less attached I've become to most of them. I don't even feel much of an urge to buy things for our apartment because I know we'll be leaving again soon.

Having more options doesn't necessarily make life better

Whether it's my wardrobe, household items, or even food, I've realized I don't need endless options. Like, do I really need 12 types of tea in my cupboard at any given moment? Often, I'm fine with just a few bags of my go-to blends.

Traveling with just a carry-on has made me realize that day to day, I tend to stick to my core favorites and don't really need a million choices for everything. I get plenty of variety when I'm out exploring.

At home, I'm happy to keep things simple and enjoy what I already have. That's more than enough for me.

Georgetown law Professor Steve Vladeck is one of the leading critics of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But in an insightful recent post on his substack, he outlines key reasons why "court expansion" is a bad response to its flaws. The cure is likely to be worse than the disease:

[I]t seems to me that those who are fully onboard the expansion-or-bust train should have to do more than simply assert that having four new Democratic appointees on the Court in 2029 would be a self-evidently "good" thing. If nothing else, proponents of expansion should have to answer the following four questions:

1. How do we avoid touching off a race to the bottom, where each time one party controls the House, Senate, and presidency, it expands the Court to ensure an ideologically and politically sympathetic majority?
2. If a race to the bottom is unavoidable, how do we avoid further (and potentially fatal) erosion of public confidence in the Court—which will quite transparently be little more than a lever of power for whichever party last had such a trifecta?
3. If eroding public confidence in the Court is a feature, and not a bug, how do we insulate against the same erosion of public confidence in lower federal courts?
4. What is the case for why expansion is a better way to achieve the desired reforms than alternatives that would (or, at least, should) avoid many of these forward-looking concerns?

He adds that court-packing could easily "permanently undermine judicial review as an institution." The rest of his piece (which is behind a paywall) offers far from reassuring answers to these questions.

I have offered similar criticisms of court-packing in a long series of articles and blog posts, most recently in a June Lawfare article  where I explained (among other things) why the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais doesn't justify packing, and in a July UnPopulist article critiquing a court-packing proposal advanced by Andy Craig. In these pieces, I explain why the Court's record of checking dangerous abuses of government power - though not without serious flaws - is considerably better than many critics claim. In addition, I argue that court-packing is likely to undermine effective judicial review - not only by the Supreme Court, but also by lower courts.

Like Vladeck, I think some of the issues that concern critics of the Court can be more effectively addressed in other ways. For example, in the Lawfare article, I explain how Congress can fix the flaws of the Callais decision by banning or restricting gerrymandering. It could also enact a binding ethics code for the justices. Justice Alito was wrong to suggest otherwise, back in 2023. That said, if your main goal is a sweeping reversal of much of the Court's recent jurisprudence, there may be no easy way to achieve that quickly without court-packing or something like it. I would argue that any benefits that might achieve are outweighed by the enormous costs of destroying judicial review.

In addition, if your objection to the Court's recent decisions is that they often don't do enough to constrain unconstitutional actions by other branches of government or by the states, court-packing is likely to make that problem worse, not better. Destroying judicial review won't enforce tighter constitutional constraints on the executive or bring back Roe v. Wade. To the contrary, it would largely destroy any hope of doing so.

In another recent piece, I assessed "non-packing" rationales for increasing the size of the Supreme Court. There, I argue that these rationales are mostly weak; and, to the extent they have merit, there are better ways to address them than an expansion that amounts to court-packing. I even outline possible ways to increase the size of the Court without creating an opportunity for court-packing (this would require allowing the party that doesn't hold the White House to pick some of the new justices).

The post Steve Vladeck's "Hard Questions About Court Expansion" appeared first on Reason Magazine.