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.
I think 9 judges is probably fine, but they should be term limited to 18 years, and we replace one judge every 2 years. Every president would get to seat a minimum of 2 judges. It would limit all the politicking around placing a judge, it would also eliminate the game of placing a young idealist that can server for 50 years.
Very hard to imagine. Most Democrats genuinely believe that the system can be fixed by sheer force of ‘civility’. Packing the court is too far outside of ‘the norm’.
We don’t need just more justices. We need age and term limits. Being allowed to feather their nests with bribes forever has clearly corrupted many of the justices on the bench.
I like the idea of 13 justices, with one overseeing each of the federal circuits.
They need to do a lot more than just “talk” about it
I used to believe that we needed expand SCOTUS to 13, but I no longer believe that. Now I believe that we should expand SCOTUS to 29 seats, with rolling term limits, so every president gets to appoint a few.
The number of seats shouldn’t be so low that one bad faith president can negatively affect governmental policy for the next 50 years.
I agree with the rolling term limits, but I’m not sure i understand 29. I can see 9 judges, 18 years limits, replace 1 every 2 years. Alternatively, i think 21 judges, 21 years limits, replace 1 every year.
With 29 seats, are you proposing 29 year term limits, and replace one every year?
Before there is talk of expansion, let’s talk about pruning Thomas from the tree. His ass is explicitly corrupt. In the normal way, not the “let’s visit atrocities on women and minorities” way the other conservatives on the court are.
He’s an easy impeachment target. He doesn’t deserve a soft landing into retirement. He deserves prison, and so does his treasonous bulldog wife.
Also Kavanaugh, who committed perjury in his hearings. He also lied to Susan Collins. You know those gang rape pervs at Cornell? Kavanaugh was that kind of a guy. He would have been first in line, encouraging the others, and texting his buddies to come over.
I’d prefer if they talk about removing the criminally corrupt justices.
Term limits first. Lifetime appointment is stupid and you might as well ask for corruption up front.
Then electoral college. 0 reason for that shit to still exist. Farmers can pick up their farms and move to Canada or Mexico if they dont like being outvoted.
Then we can worry about universal accountability, starting with the removal of absolute and qualified immunity. The concept of immunity in law is a cancer to actual justice. Once we actually start holding justices and judges accountable for their actions, we can consider having more.
Elimination of the Electoral College is at hand. They only needed two more states to vote for some new Electoral College Pact, in which states agree to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, essentially making the el action a popular vote, which it should be.
Enough statehouses flipped that if two of them voted for the pact, it would automatically take effect, or something like that. I don’t know all the details, I’ve just heard some really positive talk about it.
Or at least age limits. No one over 65.
Age isn’t the problem, corruption is. Politicians who have been in office longer are more corrupt, age is just a by product.
My life is seemingly filled with dementia-addled seniors at the moment. Age is definitely a problem.
Its not like the farmers are getting much good out of the vote they made anyway
A revolving door would just make them get all their corruption done quickly. There isn’t really a good solution, because power will always still attract people who want to abuse it.
If term limits are good for the President, why not Congress. Or, should we eliminate term limits for the President?
I disagree. Newly elected folks who aren’t career politicians are far less corrupt than those who’ve been in office for decades and who have established relationships with the filthy rich.
Power doesn’t initially exclusively attract people who want to abuse it, the corruption comes over time. Power corrupts, but not immediately.
What they need to do is put controls in forcing election of a new judge weeks after a vacancy opens. No more of this Mitch stalling like he did previously.
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.
Impeachment of Supreme Court justices doesn’t involve the courts at all. It’s done solely through Congress.
But it does require a 2/3 majority.
anything the shitstain doesn’t like also requires a two-thirds majority (of both chambers) to override his veto.
the bar is slightly lower for impeachment, as laying the charges only requires simple majority in the house.
Annoyingly, getting a 2/3 majority would be easier in Congress.
In the Senate.
Yes, but that’s even worse as it requires more Republican representatives to flip.
SCOTUS settles numerous disputes and could, like they did in the early 2000s, change the outcome of contested elections. If they do so to those that may have the plan to impeach the court, there is little anyone can do to stop them. Therefore expanding the court first takes priority, to prevent the court from retaliation.
You want to expand the Supreme Court before the next election?
Tell me, who nominates Supreme Court justices for the Senate to vote on?
You, specifically, are why I support reeducation camps for all Americans. Reading comprehension has gone downhill so rapidly since AI’s invention.
deleted by creator
Based on your extensive comment history it’s not really a wonder that you feel that way. I would bet you also feel that way about the average person on the street or anyone else you intentionally misread.
Actually, that would have to be the opposite order. The court can’t be expanded until there isn’t a republican in the Whitehouse. So priority must be given to impeachment so that the current bad actors don’t try to overturn the next election to save themselves.
They can’t expand the court before the SC can fuck with the midterm elections.
We need to do alot of things. Anyone in a red state who went blue please contact your state legislature / congressperson and senators and insist your state signs on to the electoral vote interstate compact. This is our one chance.
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.
That only works for Republicans because it takes virtually no effort to flail around breaking shit but an immense amount of effort to build something worthwhile.
Also, dems still have little power to enact change without the presidency. Not that they have no power, but don’t expect a bunch of new laws or reversed executive orders within the next two years. The biggest win is Republicans’ ability to continue breaking shit is now greatly diminished.
At least things are so broken now that little improvements seem huge. For example, look at Mamdani filling potholes in NYC.
Also good
If you want to read more about the rules around Supreme Court expansion, google „rule 34 expansion“
