Since when does the WH Chief of Staff give speeches? I wonder who is really calling the shots here? Maybe the President's brain is pudding after all.

Maybe we should all start calling him "President Miller". That might overload Trump's fragile ego, though.

On the other hand, any Democrat who thought that they might be able to work with Trump during his lame duck years just got a dose of reality.

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.

Why do people continue to be surprised that Trump is a lying liar?

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.

Nor did the author mention Donald Trump, who owns many of the courses that LIV ran tournaments at. I thought it was pretty obvious the whole thing was just a vehicle to get Saudi money into Trump's pocket.

It's not beyond my belief.

You know who isn't screwed, though? Trump himself. He's already made his bag.

I think you underestimate how unpopular the tariffs and war are. I don't think we will get Republicans to cross the lines on anything else including the budget. (Be prepared for more shutdowns).

But, I think the folks who thought they were in safe seats but ended up winning by a hair realize that they need to break with Trump on these two points in order to have a chance in 2028

As Democrats keep collecting House seats like they're Pokémon, I just want to remind everyone that the threshold in the House to override a veto is 290 seats. Democrats won't get there, but look like they will definitely get past 260 and have an outside shot at 270. But if Trump starts vetoing popular things, it wouldn't be a stretch to see 20 or 30 Republican defectors out of the 170-ish Republicans left. That's less than 20%.

The path in the Senate is tougher, you need to get to 67. If Democrats win one of the last two seats, and Fetterman doesn't Fetterman, that means they have to get 12 of the remaining 45 Senators, or 27%.

There may be enough Republicans who are sick of tarrifs to push that through. There are definitely enough Republicans who are sick of the war to push that through. And the threshold for a veto override is actually higher than impeachment; if these overrides come through and he ignores them, then impeachment is the next logical step, no matter what Chuck and Hakeem say publicly now.

If this turns out to be Chuck's plan -- work with Republicans to publicly humiliate the President, and force him to accept "no" on his signature policies that are hurting Americans -- we may all look back on this in two years thinking he's a genius. (I still want him to retire, though....)

The filibuster for SCOTUS judges is already dead, Mitch killed it in 2017

I am confident that if any of those three retired tomorrow the Senate would rush any old turkey that Trump nominated to confirmation in time for Thanksgiving

We also need to consider that Democrats are already at 250+ seats by most estimates, with something like 30-ish races left. Democrats could be above 260 and pushing 270 by the time this is all done.

A veto override needs a 2/3 majority in both houses, and in the House that threshold is 290. Democrats would only have to peel away about 20 or 30 House votes for a veto override. In the Senate, with 54 seats they would need 13 to get to 67. They might get to 56 if both outstanding races go their way.

If enough Republicans determine the tariffs were part of the problem, Democrats might be able to find those votes, and not only reverse the tariffs, but prevent the President from imposing new ones, over his veto. It's not out of the question at all.