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.
Also need to talk about putting three or four of them in prison for fraud, corruption, and graft.
Yeah you right
Talk about impeaching judges who took bribes now. Expand the court next.
The latter would make the former infinitely more possible.
And jail for the justices who took bribes, please.
Pointless until we have a Dem in the White House
Start with impeaching the corrupt fucks instead
Everything everywhere all at once, flood their news feed and hit them so hard they can’t keep up. Our turn, we will give these people a better life god damn it, we are gonna democratic it up and respect and protect their rights and interests. I can’t wait to force these people to have country that meets their needs.
Also good
They love talking about things, it’s probably time to start demanding they do those things instead.
Ready, fire, aim. Works everytime.
Ready, ready, ready, oops looks like we lost all our seats in government. Maybe next time everyone, don’t forget to donate: this is the most important election of our lifetimes!
Okay ml
oh no, you read the domain beside my username. the spell is broken. im melting… meeeelting
It’s astounding how they have literally zero desire to inspire and all desire to depress. It must just be something every normal person’s brain is incapable of understanding. Because there is actually zero chance that an ML is not the smartest and most moral person in world history.
We could pass a Constitutional Amendment to reform the Court however we want, and the President doesn’t get a say. But it will take 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States on board. That will be a hard bargain in these divided times.
What you can do with legislation is add justices to the court. So, if Democrats manage to take all branches of government in 2028, the very first bill they should pass into law is a bill to add 4 new seats to the court, effective in time for the start of the next Court session in September, nuking the fillibuster if necessary. Then, that’s the point where they go to Republicans and say “Work with us on a court reform amendment now, or President Newsom will appoint 4 progressive judges in their early 40’s to life terms on the Court, no backsies”. I bet that amendment gets passed in 6 months.
The SC expansion would need to be tied to the number of federal circuits, assuming that’s why you suggested 4, so that the addition isn’t just met by more retaliatory additions later on.
While we are dreaming of a better future, why not also reform the House to build true representation based on population and remove the cap of 435. Revive the Wyoming rule.
The SC expansion would need to be tied to the number of federal circuits, assuming that’s why you suggested 4, so that the addition isn’t just met by more retaliatory additions later on.
Yup, you got it.
While we are dreaming of a better future, why not also reform the House to build true representation based on population and remove the cap of 435. Revive the Wyoming rule.
This is necessary, also. It doesn’t require an amendment, only legislation. It would make things fairer all around. But it is only practical if Democrats have nukes the filibuster for other reasons.
Abolish not expand.
So, just the two branches then. No judicial branch.
No abolish those as well.
So, just the trunk then. No branches at all.
Well that’ll save us a lot of time then.
Start saying it now, let the GOP make a show of stopping it, and make it clear that if Dems win the trifecta in 2028 this country will have a very beautifying makeover.
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.
You might as well just have a rule that says each new President can appoint a fresh set of judges, because that would be the practical effect of such a change. I suppose that to many people, the idea of a Republican court during Republican presidential administrations and a Democratic court during Democratic presidential administrations is more appealing than the current court, but I’m not at the point yet where I would favor undermining the independence of the judicial branch even if that would lead to better short-term outcomes.
Durable and resilient change means connecting the court expansion to something meaningful. In this case, it would involve looking back on history and returning to the concept that the SC has seats equivalent to the number of federal circuits.
It could be argued there is almost a precedent for this from the Judiciary Act of 1869, the last time the court size changed, and that’s held up after all this time.
each new President can appoint a fresh set of judges, because that would be the practical effect of such a change.
Why would court expansion mean revolving justices?
Make every citizen a judge. Boom.
They’re advocating a slippery slope argument. If you add three, then I’ll add three, and then the next person after that will add three.
I don’t see that being realistic and I would hope any such expansion would have a phased-in approach to make it more palatable and fair, and less likely to be stopped or altered.
Not literally revolving justices, but rather adding enough new justices each time to establish a majority.
So like a constant stream of court expansion bills?
Yes - if the Democrats do it, I don’t think that the next time Republicans are in power they’ll just accept the Democrats’ Supreme Court.
Cool. I can’t wait until I’m a Supreme Court Justice.
That never happened before when the court was expanded. We always ended up waiting until long after it became necessary for the next expansion.
The court hasn’t been expanded since the Civil War so I’m not sure what pattern you have in mind when you say:
We always ended up waiting until long after it became necessary for the next expansion.
My point exactly.
Nah. It’s mucking too much with the Constitution and undoubtedly will be used against the country the very minute Republicans regain Congressional majority. That and DC statehood (DC is separate for a reason) are just dumb ideas.
Focus our efforts on overturning Citizens United and reforming the manner in which campaign finances work.
And absolutely prosecute every last bit of corruption and profiteering done by any politician. Make Congress a means of public service far and above any means of making money.
Part of today’s problems are because we don’t muck with the Constitution enough. I used to think of myself as a Constitutionalist, but learned that those who go by that name see it both as a sacred document but one they can interpret however they feel. It was designed and planned to be changed with the times, and we haven’t done a great job doing that.
The SC would just rule it unconstitutional and end of story. Why are we talking about this? Even FDR couldn’t do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937?wprov=sfla1
What we do have a mechanism to do is impeach Justices and plenty of cause to do so.
Impeachment requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
And any court-packing bill will have to override a veto, (2/3rds house & senate) plus overcome a SC challenge.
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 shot, and maybe investigations would expose the illegitimacy of the SC and build support for an update.
Honestly that 2/3 majority thing, implemented all over the US in various ways, was only ever meant to prevent progressive change for the good of everyone. And it apparently works very well.
In 2024 Florida had weed legalisation and enshrining the right to abortion on the ballot, both had 55% support, both failed to pass.
Well, no, they’re not able to strike down laws because they want to. Presuming competent aides draft a Constitutionally-adherent law they can’t say shit.
Besides, this should be in concert with impeaching Clarence, Alito, and Boof.
They literally did this with parts of the constitution already
My favorite is the little carve out they gave themselves for banning free speech around the SC building.
They struck down parts of the Constitution?
Basically any part that limits the President. Engaged in rebellion, not a hurdle. Take care to execute laws, too much of a hassle. Power of the purse, might as well be his.
Mmm I’m not sure that’s the case, but they absolutely have been corrupt holes for trump.
Firstly, trump would have to admit he’s starting a coup, then he’d have to prove his coup is part of his Presidential duties, which. If you’re buying that I got a bunch of bridges in Arizona to sell.
