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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (17 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

    They literally did this with parts of the constitution already

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

    They struck down parts of the Constitution?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 13 hours ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 hours ago (10 children)

    Impeachment requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 hours ago (9 children)

    And any court-packing bill will have to override a veto, (2/3rds house & senate) plus overcome a SC challenge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 hours ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago

    Eh, not really. 9 isn't some magic number enshrined in the constitution. It's just what we're used to. And having more justices wouldn't make it subservient, they would still have the same powers, no more no less.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 12 minutes ago

    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.

    The Court should be subservient, not co-equal to the other branches. Because the court is not elected and not democratically accountable. The power of judicial review was not even stated in the constitution, so it was never intended to be "co-equal." Likewise, the idea of the executive holding so much power that it could be considered "co-equal" to the entire legislative branch, one person holding that much power, was never intended.

    Having said that, I do agree with you that, from a pragmatic perspective, we can't make sweeping changes like that without a clear mandate from the people, which the Democratic party does not currently have and can't expect to have even if they win in 2028.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 hours ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent