It became clear why Ian Ayres and John Fabian Witt are professors of law rather than mathematics as they laid out a scheme for the Democrats to recapture a Supreme Court majority in their July 29 Sunday Opinion essay: They must have flunked Game Theory 101.

In “A Democratic answer for the Supreme Court: More justices,” the Yale Law School colleagues of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh make a case, as it were, for court-packing, excuse me, “court balancing,” by adding two more justices “at this moment in history” if Democrats recapture the presidency and Congress in 2020. But what is to stop a restored Republican Senate majority after 2024, with President Ivanka Trump at the helm, from adding four more Antonin Scalias at that “moment in history”? And so on, ad infinitum, until the Supreme Court building finally collapses from the weight of the added legal authorities.

It is time to put a permanent injunction on this “prisoner’s dilemma” and pass a constitutional amendment to limit the Supreme Court to nine justices. Look up that concept, professors, in your dusty math books.

Donald Rindler, Potomac

In their July 29 Sunday Opinion essay , Ian Ayres and John Fabian Witt suggested that the Supreme Court be “balanced” by adding two more justices for only 18 years to favor Democrats if the party wins in 2020 to make up for the Merrick Garland fiasco. Such an attempt would likely meet a similar fate of the 1937 attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to pack the court. At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a scathing report that called it “a needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle . . . without precedent or justification.”

Allan R. Lipman, Rockville