While I don't object to expanding the Supreme Court, surely we should also impeach and try for treason justices who have sworn to uphold the Constitution who have instead systematically used their power to tear it apart!
Why don't Dems reinstate the rape investigation of Bret Kavanaugh that MAGA closed after, what, four days? It was never finished! The only person in the room where it happened was kept away from investigators!
Did the FBI ever find any witnesses to corroborate any of the accusations Ms. Ford levelled against Justice Kavanaugh? Who has stepped forward after all these years?
I like the idea of expansion - with each Justice responsible for and coming from a specific Circuit. With term limits, the Chief Judge from each Circuit could step up to Scotus when a vacancy - planned or unplanned - occurs, eliminating the presidential appointment. It would guarantee experience for the job of SC Justice. The Judges on each Circuit could be made responsible for electing their own Chief Judge.
Though this would be different, there would still be potential for supreme court judges to be part of an internal patronage system from within the circuit court structure. Expansion of the court, and adoption of the code of ethics that all other federal court and employees are subject to would be a good idea, as well as term limits.
A code of ethics must include legal ramifications for violations of the code and it can't be left to the Supremes to make judgements as to guilt or innocence. At the least, a Supreme Court justice guilty of violating the code must lose the privilege of being a Supreme Court justice.
"Bias" is a term of art, but given their track records, given rthe rules, when confronted with a mere appearance of impropriety, justices must recuse.
On Monday, Alito recused himself from a major climate change lawsuit, Suncor Energy Inc. v. City and County of Boulder. He reversed his previous stance after months of pressure from advocacy groups regarding his financial investments.
"Alito’s reason for recusing himself was not revealed by the Supreme Court’s clerk, who notified lawyers in the case about him stepping off the case on Monday."
"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S. Code § 455 (a).
If the Democrats are truly serious about term limits, they should pass legislation for a Constitutional amendment placing limits on members of Congress first. Otherwise, this simply looks like the Dems attempting to rationalize a "hostile takeover" of one branch of government for decades for purely partisan reasons.
I see the point, but that would likely sweep out the good with the bad. They tried that in the FL Legislature and lost all the experienced people who knew how to get stuff done.
Whatever is decided, what should no longer happen is that a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed by the president. We have seen how dangerous that can be.
That would require a constitutional amendment unlikely to pass. Other ideas, such as enlarging the court, an enforceable code of ethics, and justices being, moved to "senior status" after a set term such as 18 years, are doable. I'd like to see the shadow docket banned as well. In fact, these ideas are in the Democrats' pipeline for the next Congress, if they take the majority. Hakeem Jeffries has already tasked the incredible constitutional scholar Jamie Raskin with leading the effort.
I wonder, though, if any cure we came up with would turn out to be worse than the disease. For example, the popular vote might install Justice Donald Trump or someone like him. Too many people pull the lever without thinking it through.
Impeaching (and more importantly removing) a single federal judge requires 67 Senate votes. Expanding the court will require 60. Either of those will be very heavy lifts unless the Dems significantly over perform in both the ‘26 and ‘28 elections.
SCOTUS absolutely needs a thorough housecleaning but the next Administration will need to get very creative to make it happen.
Initiiating and enforcing the same code of ethics and conduct that the lower courts and all federal workers honor would be a good beginning, as well as expanding the court.
Same problem applies—changing the law requires 60 Senate votes (which means several; Republicans have to cross the aisle to vote with us). It would also have to pass SCOTUS muster—which it might not given how corrupt the GOP justices already are.
The point is simple. Any reform the next Administration wants to conduct that relies on the existing legislative and judicial review machinery will be quite difficult to accomplish. Our folks will need some sort of “Plan B” if they want to be certain of accomplishing their objectives.
Do please remember that our Constitution has only one definition of "treason." The current joke of an "administration" tosses the term around as it pleases, because the members couldn't care less about this country or its laws, but it has nothing to do with "I just don't like that person or what he/she/they said." That was one of the huge reasons our founders had to get away from the abusive king, who tossed people into the dungeon if he just didn't like that person.
The constitution's definition says, "Aiding and abetting the/our enemy" is treason--you know, exactly what Donnie-2-Dolls has been doing with Putin and Russia. Now, this court has harmed the country so much that it seems to me it's possible we could come up with a very clear case that they've "aided and abetted countries we, as a whole country, consider to be enemies," such as Russia, but it might also be really tough.
I'm sure there are a HUGE variety of horrifying things they've done out of their own, personal ideology rather than their sworn duty to support the constitution AND to merely explain it--NOT rewrite it, as they've done so much of--so we still have loads of cases to bring against them.
I doubt that anyone could make a good case for a "treason" conviction of any SC Justice. Treason is very specifically defined in the Constitution, and I think that no SC Justices - whatever their shortcomings - can be shown to have committed treason beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Definition of Treason
Treason against the United States consists only of:
• Levying war against the United States.
• Adhering to enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort."
Someday, long after I am gone, there will be students whose dissertation explores the Trump-Russia connection, and all the corruption and international intrigue orchestrated by Putin and a willing, wealthy oligarch class. Could treason be an appropriate word/charge? We cannot know yet, not until a thorough, follow-the-money investigation has been conducted that also probes deeply how the Republican Party for decades has been drawn to control who becomes a judge, and the contours of their very undemocratic vision. Haven't Republican Congressmen and Senators been spouting Russian talking points? Hasn't Trump pursued, and his MAGA court approved, an agenda of demolishing our institutions, our rights, and values that have made us a strong and great nation -- realizing Putin's wildest dreams? The Supreme Court's role has been huge every step of the way -- enabling Trump to run for a second term, and delaying Jack Smith's prosecution just long enough that there was not enough time. Their making up presidential "immunity" seems to have given Trump his "get out of jail free" card, green-lighting corruption on a massive scale -- a "gift" of the Court. Could one or more be agent or plants of the Russian government?
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution strictly defines treason as levying war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
While high-profile figures like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are associated with "treason" colloquially, they were actually indicted, convicted, and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage under the Espionage Act of 1917.
Is "Krasnov," whether an agent, asset or willing idiot, guilty of espionage?
While I will defer to the lawyers on this point, it seems to me that destroying the U.S. a superpower is very much in the interests of Putin and Xi and given the high level of corruption among the Supreme Court justices, I would not be surprised to find many "foreign friends" who have been paying them large sums of money. It's certainly corruption, if its not treason.
trump is an enemy to the United States and the six have adhered to his ass comforting him. Remember we are talking about the court that said a president can't commit a crime in the course of their official duties.
Expanding the court is the only immediate fix at this point. The super majorities needed to impeach are just not going to happen. Amendments to the constitution require both a super majority and a lot of time to implement. Someone will throw a time limit in and then when the numbers become a reality it's too late. Equal Rights Amendment for example.
We would still need 60 votes to expand the court, impose term limits, or do any of the other worthwhile things that folks have mentioned here. While that’s obviously less than 67, we would need probably between 8-10 (allowing for Fetterman) to cross the aisle and vote against the effort their party has been engaged in for the past 30-odd years. Before we could consider this our primary tactic for reform, we’d need to have a pretty good idea exactly which Republicans Senators would do this.
I did read one essay recently suggesting that a new Congress should just go ahead and confirm four new SCOTUS justices (each would need only 51 votes) and then dare John Roberts not to seat them. That’s certainly a creative approach but is also pretty high risk. I’d feel better if knew if there was a high level working group at the top of the Democratic Party preparing a plan to surmount this very thorny set of obstacles. Think of it as our version of “Project 2025”—not just what we want to do but specifically how we’re going to do it.
As we have learned, actual charges are beside the point. Give them a taste of their own medicine, make sure they have plenty of court appearances for the rest of their lives. You could say that is counterproductive but really, what have we got to lose? It might actually light a fire under some conservative asses to clean up the constitution.
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate. If the majority of voters wanted to reward the moral high ground, that's what we would have now. All I'm saying is give people what they want. No it doesn't appease the folks to be found on this substack but what % of the voting population do we/they represent?
Thanks Jen. I agree: the courts are the most inefficient and least effective way to protect citizens' right to vote. I have a suggestion based on Australia's strategy to have a broad plebiscite happen. They have not identified voting as a privilege or a right. They define it as a legal obligation. And they fine people who do not vote. Voting is easy to do, efficient, and relatively painless in Australia. I know that this strategy would mean that the MAGAts would also come out but it is far more likely that a REQUIREMENT that people vote would bring out the people who failed to do so in 2024 and thereby stuck us with the Felon and his malicious, malignant minions and managers. Voting should be the easiest thing to do. The fact that the fascists want to restrict it--even to the point of rescinding the 19th Amendment--should tell everyone where the line in the sand is.
Some states deliberately make it difficult to vote. In Alabama, people can only vote on the day of the election, which makes for long lines, especially if there are not enough polling sites. In Texas, they are moving voting sites off of campuses, which not only makes it harder for students to vote but also staff and faculty.
The coercive strategy for voting is unlikely to be well-received by Americans. I think we would spend too much time and energy enforcing this. We have an obligation to pay taxes. Look how people react to that. I think our time is better spent encouraging people to exercise their right to vote while emphasizing that voting is not a privilege granted on high to the peasants by the elites. Americans get truly feisty when they see someone trying to take their rights away. Americans know that without enforceable rights, like voting we have no power.
See Marliss's comment. Unless ALL states have open access to the polls we will continue to see a hollowing out of the citizen's obligation to vote. Why are southern states limiting access to the polls? Because they don't want Black and Brown people voting.
Agreed. I'm in the midst of a major voting suppression fight here in Tarrant County, Texas. I guess you can say it is the worst of times and it is the best of times. The ugly white male supremacy being deployed right out in the open here by the Republicans in power at the county level makes me feel like we are right back where we were in the 60's when I was a child.
On the other hand, the way average citizens of ALL political persuasions have risen up to the meet the challenge is a beautiful thing.
I just sent a donation to Powered by People which is fighting voter suppression in Texas and not just registering voters but helping to get them to the polls.
That suggestion scares me a little. I see so many uneducated Trump followers who know little and care less about who runs the government, as long as they are comfortable. They're sheep. Followers. Tell them that Donald Trump is the answer to all their woes and they'll vote for him. Look what happened in 2024! Those that are NOT comfortable are more likely to care and to want representatives and senators that represent THEIR interests. But you ARE right that if it were a requirement, it would bring out those who don't vote. Some people have never registered. Think where we might be if all those people came out to vote.
So here's an example from my very very True Blue city. In 2024 early voting skyrocketed, but on Election Day the polls were dead. It turned out that 40 % of registered Democrats FAILED TO VOTE. If they had turned out, Kunz, who was running against Eric Sch[m]itt (the m is silent) might have won since the elections was pretty damned close. Harris would have had closer to 50% of the vote. So why didn't these people vote? I think a combo of racism and sexism re: Harris as well as utter damned laziness.
"Fortunately, “this case is likely to have limited impact on the midterms, because … the NVRA prohibits mass purges of voters in the 90 days before the election … [meaning] states can still use the database now for individualized determinations.”"
I maintain a cautious optimism that this decision will backfire. I think those fanatics looking for fraudulent voters will come up empty-handed, just as every other fanatical organization (looking at you, Heritage Foundation!) has done for the last decade.
Remember, J.D. Vance claimed "thousands" of ineligible voters were on the rolls in Nevada. Later, he had to correct himself down to 185. Then the Nevada secretary of state examined all of those cases and found...ZERO ineligible voters.
Because voter fraud rates are only slightly higher than zero.
We just need to get that word out. Over and over and over again, especially for those fascists in the back row.
If Dems regain the presidency and Congress in 28 and don't move aggressively to fix the wreckage I have no use for them. Don't ask me what I'll do instead, I don't have a plan, but I will be too disgusted to consider myself a Democrat. This includes adding justices to the Supreme Court. Don't cower in fear of what the Republicans might do next! I'm sick of Dems doing that!
The only way we can save voting rights is to vote for candidates that will protect democracy at every level. Only we can save voting rights. More town halls and interactions between the voters and candidates need to happen on a regular basis. When the candidates know what the voters want that gives them more direction in terms of how to construct their campaigns when the big day comes. It also allows them to meet their constituents in person and discuss the issues that matter most to them.
And that is why we have to work to make them care. Right now, with pocketbooks pinched, people do seem to understand that a change is needed, but in order to prevent the kind of backsliding that occurred in 2024, we need to spend the next two years emphasizing how democracy works and our role in it.
It appears that things have get incredibly bad to get some peoples' attention. One or two problems aren't enough to stir many, however the accumulation of issues (especially those that hit the kitchen-table budget) finally do so. The lack of general affordability has gotten into the home pocketbook. This seems to have creatied a tipping point.
If you want to see the perfect case in real life to support today's column, come to Tarrant County, Texas. The Republican majority of our county commissioners' court (it's not a court, it's an administrative body) has been focused on gerrymandering, closing polls and verbally attacking Democrats to box us out of power. Our power is our vote, so they have set about to take that away from us. Furthermore, they endeavor to keep their Republican base from objecting to this disenfranchisement with fear-mongering about what horrible monsters we are.
There are hours and hours of video with thousands of Tarrant County citizens over the last year or so showing up at town halls to object to the loss of our voting rights. It started with the mid-cycle redistricting of the county wherein minority districts were diluted, preposterously because of "partisanship", not prejudice. The theory of the Republican is simply the raw application of power. The Republicans stand before us an tell us to pipe down because resistance is futile, citing the S.Ct. They tell us the S.Ct. said it was okay to box their political competition out of power. The more they tell us this, the more the resistance grows. Tarrant County citizens keep showing up. Republicans are increasingly desperate because their dominance displays have failed to make us shut up and slink away.
So, the commissioner's court removed polling stations in the minority, er...Democratic precincts. And the citizens again protested. So, the County Judge, Tim O'Hare (again not a judge an administrator) started having people arrested for "breaching decorum". I defy you to look at the tape and not not see that "breaching decorum" is really saying something Tim O'Hare doesn't like.
People do not just give their rights away. And, there aren't enough people today (maybe there was fifty years ago) who look at the suppression of minority voting rights and think it's okay. Americans are smart enough and ethical enough to see that the oppression of their neighbors is government's intent to eventually oppress everyone, including themselves.
Furthermore, in general Americans get really pissed off at the raw application of power. We do not like it.
Your post has caused me to make another donation to Powered by People, Beto O'Rourke's group, focused on turnout, and helping Texas voters surmount obstacles created by Republicans to make Texas one of the lowest turnout states in the country.
The last several decades have revealed just how flawed and easy it is for bad actors to trample the US Constitution.
The document itself needs many significant updates/amendments, but the ultimate vulnerability of the American experiment lies in the Supreme Court. By capturing the SC, the Republican fascists, both on and off the court, have placed our government in their hands, which are wringing the neck of the republic and suffocating the breath of democracy.
The Supreme Court is where we must begin to clean house and make changes (term and age limits, number of justices, the vetting process, a transparent accountability review process which could ultimately lead to impeachment) and then move on to updating/amending the Constitution to meet the reality of today's America -- 250-years DIFFERENT -- from the nation at the time the document was ratified.
Having presidents appoint Supreme Court justices is one of the stupidest, most destructive to democracy activities in the country's history. You quickly end up with ideologists like Roberts who owe their positions to unfit, toxic individuals like Trump taking their agendas to the Court, through emergency orders and appeal of everything. We need a system where Court justices are chosen by a representative body of judges, for limited time, like Congress and the presidency.
This will be a battle the Republicans will fight every step of the way, because without gerrymandering and the partisan SCOTUS decisions that have been made this century, they would never win majorities in the House or the presidency. They have no agenda, no deep thinkers, and a bunch of conspiracy-theory crackpots, as that dope Sen. Schmidt from Missouri showed yesterday during the ill-timed and ill-fated grilling of Jack Smith. But as Jen points out, SCOTUS has to be reeled in, voting rights need to be codified, and gerrymandering needs to end. I think some people will be surprised that some states the lazy legacy media calls "ruby red" are actually just gerrymandered to hell.
The easiest fix is to make election day a federal holiday. A major problem is that many people have to work and find it very difficult to get to wherever they need to be to vote. That needs to be fixed, and making election day a federal holiday is the easiest and probably the best fix.
A pro democracy coalition wouldn't even need to be partisan. There must surely be enough people, even in government, that aspire to go back to democratic norms and do away with the hyper partisanship that is prevalent in todays government. I think it's what the founders envisioned. Can't we get it done?
I think the most important admonition here is to get voters to think beyond the big ticket races for Congress and governorships, and to take back control of their local representation when they go to the polls: in the State House, on the elections board, the school board, the judiciary, etc.. Without those other pieces in place, the path to full, fair representation becomes harder.
Start early in life with better programs in the schools for teaching Civics & Government courses again. We fell back on this. Students should be exposed to how government works, an explanation of rights and responsibilities, including that of the importance of voting.
While I don't object to expanding the Supreme Court, surely we should also impeach and try for treason justices who have sworn to uphold the Constitution who have instead systematically used their power to tear it apart!
Why don't Dems reinstate the rape investigation of Bret Kavanaugh that MAGA closed after, what, four days? It was never finished! The only person in the room where it happened was kept away from investigators!
Did the FBI ever find any witnesses to corroborate any of the accusations Ms. Ford levelled against Justice Kavanaugh? Who has stepped forward after all these years?
I like the idea of expansion - with each Justice responsible for and coming from a specific Circuit. With term limits, the Chief Judge from each Circuit could step up to Scotus when a vacancy - planned or unplanned - occurs, eliminating the presidential appointment. It would guarantee experience for the job of SC Justice. The Judges on each Circuit could be made responsible for electing their own Chief Judge.
Though this would be different, there would still be potential for supreme court judges to be part of an internal patronage system from within the circuit court structure. Expansion of the court, and adoption of the code of ethics that all other federal court and employees are subject to would be a good idea, as well as term limits.
A code of ethics must include legal ramifications for violations of the code and it can't be left to the Supremes to make judgements as to guilt or innocence. At the least, a Supreme Court justice guilty of violating the code must lose the privilege of being a Supreme Court justice.
As a golfer, even Roberts knows never up never in. Nobody has filed bias motions since the November 2003 order.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/code-of-conduct-for-justices_november_13_2023.pdf
"Bias" is a term of art, but given their track records, given rthe rules, when confronted with a mere appearance of impropriety, justices must recuse.
On Monday, Alito recused himself from a major climate change lawsuit, Suncor Energy Inc. v. City and County of Boulder. He reversed his previous stance after months of pressure from advocacy groups regarding his financial investments.
"Alito’s reason for recusing himself was not revealed by the Supreme Court’s clerk, who notified lawyers in the case about him stepping off the case on Monday."
The rule REQUIRES recusal.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/09/justice-alito-will-no-longer-participate-in-climate-change-dispute/
Moreover: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455
"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S. Code § 455 (a).
It’s way harder to collude with more people…. herding cats comes to mind.
If the Democrats are truly serious about term limits, they should pass legislation for a Constitutional amendment placing limits on members of Congress first. Otherwise, this simply looks like the Dems attempting to rationalize a "hostile takeover" of one branch of government for decades for purely partisan reasons.
I see the point, but that would likely sweep out the good with the bad. They tried that in the FL Legislature and lost all the experienced people who knew how to get stuff done.
Let's get the money out first. I feel that would cure a lot of problems.
Understand, but at this point I think there is more bad than good in Congress, at least at the leadership level.
Whatever is decided, what should no longer happen is that a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed by the president. We have seen how dangerous that can be.
That would require a constitutional amendment unlikely to pass. Other ideas, such as enlarging the court, an enforceable code of ethics, and justices being, moved to "senior status" after a set term such as 18 years, are doable. I'd like to see the shadow docket banned as well. In fact, these ideas are in the Democrats' pipeline for the next Congress, if they take the majority. Hakeem Jeffries has already tasked the incredible constitutional scholar Jamie Raskin with leading the effort.
I wonder, though, if any cure we came up with would turn out to be worse than the disease. For example, the popular vote might install Justice Donald Trump or someone like him. Too many people pull the lever without thinking it through.
Impeaching (and more importantly removing) a single federal judge requires 67 Senate votes. Expanding the court will require 60. Either of those will be very heavy lifts unless the Dems significantly over perform in both the ‘26 and ‘28 elections.
SCOTUS absolutely needs a thorough housecleaning but the next Administration will need to get very creative to make it happen.
Initiiating and enforcing the same code of ethics and conduct that the lower courts and all federal workers honor would be a good beginning, as well as expanding the court.
Same problem applies—changing the law requires 60 Senate votes (which means several; Republicans have to cross the aisle to vote with us). It would also have to pass SCOTUS muster—which it might not given how corrupt the GOP justices already are.
The point is simple. Any reform the next Administration wants to conduct that relies on the existing legislative and judicial review machinery will be quite difficult to accomplish. Our folks will need some sort of “Plan B” if they want to be certain of accomplishing their objectives.
Do please remember that our Constitution has only one definition of "treason." The current joke of an "administration" tosses the term around as it pleases, because the members couldn't care less about this country or its laws, but it has nothing to do with "I just don't like that person or what he/she/they said." That was one of the huge reasons our founders had to get away from the abusive king, who tossed people into the dungeon if he just didn't like that person.
The constitution's definition says, "Aiding and abetting the/our enemy" is treason--you know, exactly what Donnie-2-Dolls has been doing with Putin and Russia. Now, this court has harmed the country so much that it seems to me it's possible we could come up with a very clear case that they've "aided and abetted countries we, as a whole country, consider to be enemies," such as Russia, but it might also be really tough.
I'm sure there are a HUGE variety of horrifying things they've done out of their own, personal ideology rather than their sworn duty to support the constitution AND to merely explain it--NOT rewrite it, as they've done so much of--so we still have loads of cases to bring against them.
In my always-ever-so-humble opinion, of course.
I doubt that anyone could make a good case for a "treason" conviction of any SC Justice. Treason is very specifically defined in the Constitution, and I think that no SC Justices - whatever their shortcomings - can be shown to have committed treason beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Definition of Treason
Treason against the United States consists only of:
• Levying war against the United States.
• Adhering to enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort."
Someday, long after I am gone, there will be students whose dissertation explores the Trump-Russia connection, and all the corruption and international intrigue orchestrated by Putin and a willing, wealthy oligarch class. Could treason be an appropriate word/charge? We cannot know yet, not until a thorough, follow-the-money investigation has been conducted that also probes deeply how the Republican Party for decades has been drawn to control who becomes a judge, and the contours of their very undemocratic vision. Haven't Republican Congressmen and Senators been spouting Russian talking points? Hasn't Trump pursued, and his MAGA court approved, an agenda of demolishing our institutions, our rights, and values that have made us a strong and great nation -- realizing Putin's wildest dreams? The Supreme Court's role has been huge every step of the way -- enabling Trump to run for a second term, and delaying Jack Smith's prosecution just long enough that there was not enough time. Their making up presidential "immunity" seems to have given Trump his "get out of jail free" card, green-lighting corruption on a massive scale -- a "gift" of the Court. Could one or more be agent or plants of the Russian government?
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution strictly defines treason as levying war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
While high-profile figures like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are associated with "treason" colloquially, they were actually indicted, convicted, and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage under the Espionage Act of 1917.
Is "Krasnov," whether an agent, asset or willing idiot, guilty of espionage?
Traitors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_treason_against_the_United_States
While I will defer to the lawyers on this point, it seems to me that destroying the U.S. a superpower is very much in the interests of Putin and Xi and given the high level of corruption among the Supreme Court justices, I would not be surprised to find many "foreign friends" who have been paying them large sums of money. It's certainly corruption, if its not treason.
trump is an enemy to the United States and the six have adhered to his ass comforting him. Remember we are talking about the court that said a president can't commit a crime in the course of their official duties.
For sure.
Expanding the court is the only immediate fix at this point. The super majorities needed to impeach are just not going to happen. Amendments to the constitution require both a super majority and a lot of time to implement. Someone will throw a time limit in and then when the numbers become a reality it's too late. Equal Rights Amendment for example.
We would still need 60 votes to expand the court, impose term limits, or do any of the other worthwhile things that folks have mentioned here. While that’s obviously less than 67, we would need probably between 8-10 (allowing for Fetterman) to cross the aisle and vote against the effort their party has been engaged in for the past 30-odd years. Before we could consider this our primary tactic for reform, we’d need to have a pretty good idea exactly which Republicans Senators would do this.
I did read one essay recently suggesting that a new Congress should just go ahead and confirm four new SCOTUS justices (each would need only 51 votes) and then dare John Roberts not to seat them. That’s certainly a creative approach but is also pretty high risk. I’d feel better if knew if there was a high level working group at the top of the Democratic Party preparing a plan to surmount this very thorny set of obstacles. Think of it as our version of “Project 2025”—not just what we want to do but specifically how we’re going to do it.
That's wonderful rhetoric, but if you have actual impeachable charges, please let us know what they are.
As we have learned, actual charges are beside the point. Give them a taste of their own medicine, make sure they have plenty of court appearances for the rest of their lives. You could say that is counterproductive but really, what have we got to lose? It might actually light a fire under some conservative asses to clean up the constitution.
"You could say that is counterproductive but really, what have we got to lose?"
It just reinforces the idea that there are no adults running anything in Washington, regardless of which party you root for.
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate. If the majority of voters wanted to reward the moral high ground, that's what we would have now. All I'm saying is give people what they want. No it doesn't appease the folks to be found on this substack but what % of the voting population do we/they represent?
Thanks Jen. I agree: the courts are the most inefficient and least effective way to protect citizens' right to vote. I have a suggestion based on Australia's strategy to have a broad plebiscite happen. They have not identified voting as a privilege or a right. They define it as a legal obligation. And they fine people who do not vote. Voting is easy to do, efficient, and relatively painless in Australia. I know that this strategy would mean that the MAGAts would also come out but it is far more likely that a REQUIREMENT that people vote would bring out the people who failed to do so in 2024 and thereby stuck us with the Felon and his malicious, malignant minions and managers. Voting should be the easiest thing to do. The fact that the fascists want to restrict it--even to the point of rescinding the 19th Amendment--should tell everyone where the line in the sand is.
Some states deliberately make it difficult to vote. In Alabama, people can only vote on the day of the election, which makes for long lines, especially if there are not enough polling sites. In Texas, they are moving voting sites off of campuses, which not only makes it harder for students to vote but also staff and faculty.
The coercive strategy for voting is unlikely to be well-received by Americans. I think we would spend too much time and energy enforcing this. We have an obligation to pay taxes. Look how people react to that. I think our time is better spent encouraging people to exercise their right to vote while emphasizing that voting is not a privilege granted on high to the peasants by the elites. Americans get truly feisty when they see someone trying to take their rights away. Americans know that without enforceable rights, like voting we have no power.
See Marliss's comment. Unless ALL states have open access to the polls we will continue to see a hollowing out of the citizen's obligation to vote. Why are southern states limiting access to the polls? Because they don't want Black and Brown people voting.
Agreed. I'm in the midst of a major voting suppression fight here in Tarrant County, Texas. I guess you can say it is the worst of times and it is the best of times. The ugly white male supremacy being deployed right out in the open here by the Republicans in power at the county level makes me feel like we are right back where we were in the 60's when I was a child.
On the other hand, the way average citizens of ALL political persuasions have risen up to the meet the challenge is a beautiful thing.
I just sent a donation to Powered by People which is fighting voter suppression in Texas and not just registering voters but helping to get them to the polls.
That suggestion scares me a little. I see so many uneducated Trump followers who know little and care less about who runs the government, as long as they are comfortable. They're sheep. Followers. Tell them that Donald Trump is the answer to all their woes and they'll vote for him. Look what happened in 2024! Those that are NOT comfortable are more likely to care and to want representatives and senators that represent THEIR interests. But you ARE right that if it were a requirement, it would bring out those who don't vote. Some people have never registered. Think where we might be if all those people came out to vote.
So here's an example from my very very True Blue city. In 2024 early voting skyrocketed, but on Election Day the polls were dead. It turned out that 40 % of registered Democrats FAILED TO VOTE. If they had turned out, Kunz, who was running against Eric Sch[m]itt (the m is silent) might have won since the elections was pretty damned close. Harris would have had closer to 50% of the vote. So why didn't these people vote? I think a combo of racism and sexism re: Harris as well as utter damned laziness.
"Fortunately, “this case is likely to have limited impact on the midterms, because … the NVRA prohibits mass purges of voters in the 90 days before the election … [meaning] states can still use the database now for individualized determinations.”"
I maintain a cautious optimism that this decision will backfire. I think those fanatics looking for fraudulent voters will come up empty-handed, just as every other fanatical organization (looking at you, Heritage Foundation!) has done for the last decade.
Remember, J.D. Vance claimed "thousands" of ineligible voters were on the rolls in Nevada. Later, he had to correct himself down to 185. Then the Nevada secretary of state examined all of those cases and found...ZERO ineligible voters.
Because voter fraud rates are only slightly higher than zero.
We just need to get that word out. Over and over and over again, especially for those fascists in the back row.
So well said. Thank you.
If Dems regain the presidency and Congress in 28 and don't move aggressively to fix the wreckage I have no use for them. Don't ask me what I'll do instead, I don't have a plan, but I will be too disgusted to consider myself a Democrat. This includes adding justices to the Supreme Court. Don't cower in fear of what the Republicans might do next! I'm sick of Dems doing that!
The only way we can save voting rights is to vote for candidates that will protect democracy at every level. Only we can save voting rights. More town halls and interactions between the voters and candidates need to happen on a regular basis. When the candidates know what the voters want that gives them more direction in terms of how to construct their campaigns when the big day comes. It also allows them to meet their constituents in person and discuss the issues that matter most to them.
Unfortunately recent history has shown that we cannot count on voters to understand or care about democracy
And that is why we have to work to make them care. Right now, with pocketbooks pinched, people do seem to understand that a change is needed, but in order to prevent the kind of backsliding that occurred in 2024, we need to spend the next two years emphasizing how democracy works and our role in it.
It appears that things have get incredibly bad to get some peoples' attention. One or two problems aren't enough to stir many, however the accumulation of issues (especially those that hit the kitchen-table budget) finally do so. The lack of general affordability has gotten into the home pocketbook. This seems to have creatied a tipping point.
Leave no voter behind: How to arrange shared rides to the polls with the free MakeItFast app.
https://thedemlabs.org/2026/09/30/how-to-organize-shared-rides-to-the-polls/
If you want to see the perfect case in real life to support today's column, come to Tarrant County, Texas. The Republican majority of our county commissioners' court (it's not a court, it's an administrative body) has been focused on gerrymandering, closing polls and verbally attacking Democrats to box us out of power. Our power is our vote, so they have set about to take that away from us. Furthermore, they endeavor to keep their Republican base from objecting to this disenfranchisement with fear-mongering about what horrible monsters we are.
There are hours and hours of video with thousands of Tarrant County citizens over the last year or so showing up at town halls to object to the loss of our voting rights. It started with the mid-cycle redistricting of the county wherein minority districts were diluted, preposterously because of "partisanship", not prejudice. The theory of the Republican is simply the raw application of power. The Republicans stand before us an tell us to pipe down because resistance is futile, citing the S.Ct. They tell us the S.Ct. said it was okay to box their political competition out of power. The more they tell us this, the more the resistance grows. Tarrant County citizens keep showing up. Republicans are increasingly desperate because their dominance displays have failed to make us shut up and slink away.
So, the commissioner's court removed polling stations in the minority, er...Democratic precincts. And the citizens again protested. So, the County Judge, Tim O'Hare (again not a judge an administrator) started having people arrested for "breaching decorum". I defy you to look at the tape and not not see that "breaching decorum" is really saying something Tim O'Hare doesn't like.
People do not just give their rights away. And, there aren't enough people today (maybe there was fifty years ago) who look at the suppression of minority voting rights and think it's okay. Americans are smart enough and ethical enough to see that the oppression of their neighbors is government's intent to eventually oppress everyone, including themselves.
Furthermore, in general Americans get really pissed off at the raw application of power. We do not like it.
"Furthermore, in general Americans get really pissed off at the raw application of power. We do not like it."
Well said. Too bad neither party really cares as long as they are in power.
Way too negative, Hal.
Your post has caused me to make another donation to Powered by People, Beto O'Rourke's group, focused on turnout, and helping Texas voters surmount obstacles created by Republicans to make Texas one of the lowest turnout states in the country.
💙💙💙
The last several decades have revealed just how flawed and easy it is for bad actors to trample the US Constitution.
The document itself needs many significant updates/amendments, but the ultimate vulnerability of the American experiment lies in the Supreme Court. By capturing the SC, the Republican fascists, both on and off the court, have placed our government in their hands, which are wringing the neck of the republic and suffocating the breath of democracy.
The Supreme Court is where we must begin to clean house and make changes (term and age limits, number of justices, the vetting process, a transparent accountability review process which could ultimately lead to impeachment) and then move on to updating/amending the Constitution to meet the reality of today's America -- 250-years DIFFERENT -- from the nation at the time the document was ratified.
Having presidents appoint Supreme Court justices is one of the stupidest, most destructive to democracy activities in the country's history. You quickly end up with ideologists like Roberts who owe their positions to unfit, toxic individuals like Trump taking their agendas to the Court, through emergency orders and appeal of everything. We need a system where Court justices are chosen by a representative body of judges, for limited time, like Congress and the presidency.
There is no balance of power now.
This will be a battle the Republicans will fight every step of the way, because without gerrymandering and the partisan SCOTUS decisions that have been made this century, they would never win majorities in the House or the presidency. They have no agenda, no deep thinkers, and a bunch of conspiracy-theory crackpots, as that dope Sen. Schmidt from Missouri showed yesterday during the ill-timed and ill-fated grilling of Jack Smith. But as Jen points out, SCOTUS has to be reeled in, voting rights need to be codified, and gerrymandering needs to end. I think some people will be surprised that some states the lazy legacy media calls "ruby red" are actually just gerrymandered to hell.
The easiest fix is to make election day a federal holiday. A major problem is that many people have to work and find it very difficult to get to wherever they need to be to vote. That needs to be fixed, and making election day a federal holiday is the easiest and probably the best fix.
A pro democracy coalition wouldn't even need to be partisan. There must surely be enough people, even in government, that aspire to go back to democratic norms and do away with the hyper partisanship that is prevalent in todays government. I think it's what the founders envisioned. Can't we get it done?
Count me in, Pat! Now is the time to stand tall for Democracy.
Both parties are too obsessed with power to care about what's in the Constitution.
That is not what is going on now, Hal.
Trump and his endless Executive Orders, following in the footsteps of his predecessors...
Democrats wanting to change the Supreme Court becuase it is not ideologically aligned with their worldview...
These are but two recent exaples of what power does to individuals and parties.
I think the most important admonition here is to get voters to think beyond the big ticket races for Congress and governorships, and to take back control of their local representation when they go to the polls: in the State House, on the elections board, the school board, the judiciary, etc.. Without those other pieces in place, the path to full, fair representation becomes harder.
Start early in life with better programs in the schools for teaching Civics & Government courses again. We fell back on this. Students should be exposed to how government works, an explanation of rights and responsibilities, including that of the importance of voting.
The time for ALL American patriots so stand and fight like wet cats for their democracy is now.
We cannot hesitate here, patriots. It would be a disaster.