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
[–] 32 points 19 hours ago (7 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 15 hours ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

    Or at least age limits. No one over 65.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 16 hours ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent