Without control of the White House, there is of course only so much Democrats can do with their newfound power. And in the context of the myriad horrors of the first half of President Donald Trump’s second term, talking about what the party “should” do next is roughly analogous to deciding which out-of-control forest fire to fight first: There is not enough water, there are lots of worthy candidates, and all of them are getting worse.
One thing must be true, though: Whatever issues Democratic lawmakers choose to focus on—and, as the 2028 ideas primary gets underway, whatever ambitious ideas Democratic presidential hopefuls choose to support—the party must also have a plan for taking on the Supreme Court, which remains an existential threat to anything Democrats might hope to accomplish. Even if the party is fortunate enough to win a trifecta—the House, the Senate, and the White House—in 2028, things like a Green New Deal and Medicare for All and a new Voting Rights Act do not stand a chance before this six-justice conservative supermajority. Regrettably, what I wrote in 2020 is just as true today: If Congress passes any one of these proposals into law, the only real question is which justice ends up writing the opinion that kills it.
While a much larger reform and/or constitutional amendment is probably necessary, I think the most reasonable short-term compromise I’d pitch would be one new seat per presidential term. That’s a gradual enough expansion to avoid any accusations of trying to pack the courts all at once while one party has control.
I agree—one new justice per term, with no hard cap on the total number.
Given the average historical length of justices’ careers, the total would be roughly the same—but you’d never have a single president appointing a whole cluster based on the accident of other justices’ deaths or retirements.