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.
The Constitution says in plain terms that Congress sets the number of justices. It’s been expanded before. There’s really no standing for any argument saying it can’t.
This would be a transparent attempt to usurp the power of the Supreme Court and make it subservient, not co-equal, to the other two branches.
If we want to fight a good-faith SC challenge, we’d have to do something like every president gets to appointments of 16 years or something that just makes things more equitable and less random (retirements, deaths). The more the intent is to alter the court for political reasons, the more likely it is to fail…
So I think impeachments, as long as a shot as they are currently, is a better tactic, and maybe investigations would expose the illegitimacy of the SC and build support for an update in a way abstract arguments about the number of justices do not.
No it wouldn’t be?
If the supreme Court wants to start declaring parts of the Constitution to be unconstitutional, they’re just poking holes in their own authority.
The Supreme Court goes outside the strict text of the Consitution all the time… Saying, “I don’t like how the Supreme Court is voting, so I’m going to appoint as many Justices as I want until I get my way” is a pretty clear violation of powers.
But y’all can believe in unicorns and chocolate trees or whatever the fuck makes you feel better. I’m out.
The powers are explicitly stated. Changing the number of seats is quite literally within their power, not a violation.
The SC has yet to directly contradict a straightforward statement in the constitution. Going outside the text is not the same as violating the text themselves.