The one thing that is virtually certain about Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden’s plan to change the Supreme Court is that it is not going to pass in this current Congress.

It might face the same fate in the next Congress. And the next. Parts of it would likely be challenged in court as unconstitutional under the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence, at least. If his plan passed, it might make it easier in the future for others to make changes in the court that Wyden, a Democrat, would not like.

So why bring it up, push it forward?

Because the country needs a debate about how the court operates.

Wyden’s plan would expand the court to 15 justices over the next three presidential terms.

It would require a supermajority threshold to overturn acts of Congress.

It would put enforceable ethics standards on the court.

It would prevent unending delays of consideration of Supreme Court nominations in the Senate.

It would require more disclosure of judicial opinion and votes.

It would require more scrutiny of judicial tax returns and public audits.

It would split the Ninth Circuit and add more judgeships.

And there’s more.

There may be parts of this that would have a better chance of passing separately. Wyden wants them all. Term limits for members of the Supreme Court have also been discussed rather than just adding more members to the court. That would surely face a Constitutional challenge, as well.

Not all of the arguments about wanting to reform the court are partisan. The plan’s immediate impact for now may be partisan — it may help make more clear the distinction between the two parties in the presidential election.