Josh Marsall: There Is No Democratic Future Without Supreme Court Reform

[SunSeeker]

I’ve made versions of this argument here in the Editors’ Blog and on the podcast many times. But it’s so critical and so beyond dispute I wanted to state it here as clearly as possible. There is no future for civic democracy in this country without reforming the Supreme Court. Putting that more specifically, the only way to recover from Donald Trump’s rapid lunge into an authoritarian American future is a future point at which Democrats regain control of the federal government — a trifecta — and institute a series of laws which cut off the channels Trump has exploited to get us to this point. That doesn’t solve the problem of Trumpism. The core issue is that very large minority of Americans who support his style of autocratic government. But that cuts off many of the paths Trump has used to build a presidential autocracy under the thinnest cover of law. You need, among other things, a federal law to place strict limits on partisan and racial gerrymandering. It’s only one example out of many – you need laws re-instituting true independent agencies, drastically limiting the use of military forces on US territory, barring president’s from claiming budgeting authority, et al. I note this example because it came up today when Kate and I recorded this week’s podcast. But even this comparatively uncontroversial federal statute would certainly be overturned by the Republican justices.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/there-is-no-democratic-future-without-supreme-court-reform

[Grins]

1. True. But will Democrats ever do it???

I think it was Senator Durbin that went after Clarence Thomas and get him impeached.

Support from his Party? WAY short of what was needed.

Adjust the court by adding 4 new justices and match the current federal district court structure…?
Lots of talk leading to nothing.

The thing is, if the party roles were reversed, Republicans would do it in a second!

[kentuck]

2. It will not be the only solution..

But only a step.

[wiggs]

8. This is correct...scotus is one of many aspects of US that must change. Will take decades. nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Killing the filibuster to expand the court must be a litmus test for all Dem congressional candidates. Nt

[BWdem4life]

6. Crap I just recced a reply by Fiendish Thingy. nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. That's my goal

Finding common ground wherever I can.

[republianmushroom]

4. They will never remove the smell of the roberts court

no matter how much reform is done to it.

[SunSeeker]

5. Yes they will. Just like the Roberts Court obliterated the Warren Court.

The first order of business is increasing the SCOTUS seats to 13, one for each of the 13 federal circuit courts. We had only 9 circuit courts when SCOTUS was increased to 9 in 1869. It used to be only 6 SCOTUS seats when we had 6 circuit courts, up until 1807.

This can all be done by a simple passage of legislation by Congress. Then fill the seats with liberals.

Then they can overturn Citizens United, Heller, and Dodd, and all the opinions eviscerating the Voting Rights Act. Just like how major precedents were overturned by the Roberts Court, including Roe v. Wade (constitutional right to abortion), Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. FEC (campaign finance limits), Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (Chevron deference), and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (affirmative action in higher education). 

Time for what goes around to come around!

[republianmushroom]

7. It will not happen any time soon, if at all. IMO

[SunSeeker]

9. Your defeatism is what fascists rely on. nt

[leftstreet]

10. Is it really defeatism?

Looks more like reality to me. How many fucking times has this subject come up, candidates campaign on it, blah blah blah

If we accept that the legislative branch has no interest in expanding the judicial branch, we move on from there and find out how to change it

[SunSeeker]

12. How many times has the Dem electorate insisted on expanding the Supreme Court?

It's time has come. It really is the only way to save America.

[leftstreet]

13. Most people don't pay attention to courts

unless they're in one

But seriously you'd probably get a large % of people saying "Well then we'd just have 13 (or whatever) corrupt judges!"

[SunSeeker]

14. How is it the Republicans were able to get their base to pay attention to the courts?

The Dems can do the same, especially after the Dodd and other horrible rulings by the Roberts Court. People understand now that the Supreme Court affects them. Supreme Court justices appointed by modern Democratic Presidents are not "corrupt" and never have been, and I think most people understand that. You're projecting your defeatism onto the electorate.

[leftstreet]

17. Oh, okay n/t

[Wanderlust988]

15. I'm only for SC reform if can't be undone or backfire on us in the future

I think it's silly to just add seats so a future Republican majority can add 10 more seats, then it becomes race which party can add more of its judges to the courts. We'll be up to 100 judges by 2040.

I think adding 2 seats, but also adding several temporary seats and let the appellate and district judges sit on different cases and let it rotate it throughout the country so it'll make it impossible for anyone to know the outcome for a case. This way is much more durable and healthier for the republic.

[SunSeeker]

16. Silly is watching as SCOTUS destroys America.

So what if Republicans increase it more later? We'll then increase it some more. I'm fine with 100 judges, maybe they can divide up the cases and hear more cases. The current situation is killing democracy.