But conservatives should resist an easier temptation, too: pretending that the court’s legitimacy problem is entirely a Democratic creation. It isn’t.

The deeper problem is what happens when political power becomes the pathway to controlling the Supreme Court.

Both parties increasingly treat the court as something to capture, rather than an institution whose authority depends on being perceived as independent of the politicians who helped shape it.

The public has noticed. Confidence in the court has fallen dramatically. Gallup found in July that just 33% of Americans approved of the way the Supreme Court was handling its job, the lowest rating in its 26-year trend.

Chief Justice John Roberts has acknowledged the perception problem, noting that Americans increasingly view the justices as political actors making policy rather than judges deciding what the law requires.

That perception did not begin with President Donald Trump. But conservatives should be honest about Trump’s role in the story.

Trump was constitutionally entitled to nominate justices who shared his judicial philosophy. Republicans were entitled to celebrate those appointments. His three nominations fundamentally reshaped the court and delivered conservatives a majority they had spent decades trying to achieve.

But there is an important distinction between changing the court and owning it.

Trump did not own the justices he appointed. Neither does the Republican Party.

And conservatives should not expect the court to function as an extension of a Republican administration simply because Republican presidents appointed its members.

That principle matters especially when the court frustrates Trump.

If conservatives believe Democrats are wrong to attack judicial independence whenever a ruling goes against them, conservatives cannot suddenly abandon that principle when a court blocks something a Republican president wants to do.

The same standard has to apply to everyone.

Otherwise, the Supreme Court becomes less like a constitutional institution and more like a trophy passed between political parties.

Democrats win power, reshape the judiciary, and conservatives accuse the courts of activism. Republicans gain power, reshape the judiciary, and liberals accuse the courts of becoming partisan. Then the losing party proposes changing the rules.

Jeffries’ proposal is simply the latest expression of that cycle.

The answer is not to give either party permanent control. It is to make political control less important.

A politically neutral Supreme Court would not be one that produces an equal number of liberal and conservative rulings. Nor would it require justices to pretend they have no judicial philosophies.

It would be a court whose members are willing to disappoint the politicians who appointed them, apply constitutional principles consistently regardless of who benefits, and recognize that not every political dispute belongs in the courtroom.

That kind of court will frustrate everyone.

And that may be a sign that it is working.

Judicial independence does not mean judges are always right. Conservatives can believe that the court has made serious mistakes. Liberals can believe the same. The point is that the legitimacy of the institution cannot depend on whether its decisions produce the preferred political outcome.

This is where conservatives should be especially careful.

For decades, the right correctly warned against turning the judiciary into a substitute legislature. But that argument loses its force if judicial restraint simply means restraint when judges reach decisions conservatives dislike.

The same principle must apply when the court reaches decisions conservatives celebrate.

The Supreme Court’s authority ultimately rests on something more fragile than presidential appointments or congressional majorities: public trust.

Once Americans believe that the answer to every major constitutional question depends primarily on which party appointed the justices, the Court loses something that no number of new seats or term limits can easily restore.

Jeffries sees a conservative court and wants to change the institution.

Conservatives should reject that solution. But they should also ask a harder question: What happens if conservatives begin believing that the Supreme Court is valuable primarily because it belongs to them?

The answer should trouble everyone.

The Supreme Court does not belong to Democrats. It does not belong to Republicans. It does not belong to Trump, former President Joe Biden, or any president who appoints its members.

It belongs to the Constitution.

THE SUPREME COURT COULD SOON LET PIPELINE GIANTS STEAL LAND ON THE CHEAP

If conservatives genuinely believe that, defending judicial independence cannot be something we do only when the court rules our way.

Sometimes the best evidence that the court is independent is that it disappoints us.

David Sypher Jr. is a conservative writer from Rahway, New Jersey.