Under the Constitution, Congress must provide funds to pay Supreme Court justices’ salaries. But it’s not obliged to pay for all the Court’s administrative expenses - staff, travel, etc. It would be pretty straightforward to include a provision in an appropriation bill conditioning that on the Court adopting an ethics code.
Very very important. I was just reading Hakeem Jeffries' excellent plan for reining in the Supreme Court. Some of the items, including this one and banning the so-called "Shadow Docket," seem very passable to me. The Supreme Court should have to justify every decision. He also includes 18-year term limits. He said after Democrats taking control Jamie Raskin will be leading this effort. Raskin is one of the most constitutional knowledgeable members of Congress and he is relentless. Read more here: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-reform-gathers-momentum
I never miss a chance to hear you out, and thanks for mentioning our broken federal agencies. I just heard that the head of wildlife refuges is being "reassigned" (read: forced out). This is just one example of the utter trashing of decades of expertise that America sorely needs to compete in this world and to safeguard our own resources. Trump is throwing away what hardworking Americans have built over the past fifty years of progress on the environment, health, and our social network at a time when outside forces increasingly threaten these sectors.
We're a federal worker household, and we've lived with the threat of job loss and financial insolvency for a decade now. Even while Joe was in office, the groundwork had been laid to hollow out our federal agencies for the next sociopath who came along. Trump knows that the glacial pace of the legal system puts people like us at a major disadvantage. Once lost, workers with singular expertise won't be coming back for another licking. What encouragement can you give civil servants now who slid past DOGE only to have to work harder with less support and more fear?
This article was a fantastic summary of what's possible in the future. (Boy, I sure wish you were helming the DNC instead of Ken Martin.) Thank you.
Thank you! I’m afraid there is little I can say to encourage federal workers who have been demoralized by the president’s disdain for them. Each has to make a decision based on his or her personal situation, knowing that if they stay, their jobs will not be as rewarding as they once were, and in some cases they may feel like they’re complicit in actions they believe to be wrong, but if they leave, they may be contributing to the further dismantlement of our government. But I would say that part of our plan for 2029 must be to create incentives for qualified federal workers who left to come back if they are inspired to do so.
Was I begging? Yes, I guess so. Your word "inspired" made me feel good, though! I'm going with that. And you did give folks an idea of the impossible choices we face. Gracias.
Yes, there are many things Democrats can do; but, if the Democrats try any of these things, they need to attach increased taxes on large corporations, millionaires and billionaires (including a billionaire wealth tax). And don't allow the threat of the Felon's veto to stop the passing of legislation. Reroute funding for ICE to putting increased police officers on the beat, increased social workers in support of the police.
Pass a comprehensive immigration bill. Let the GOP either filibuster it in the Senate or the Felon veto it. Then every Democrat can run on the GOP doing nothing and the Democratic Party working to make American lives better.
Pass the John Lewis Voting Rights and Freedom to Vote Acts and let the GOP either filibuster them in the Senate or the Felon veto them. Then in 2028, if the Democratic Party holds the Senate, House and Presidency, cancel the filibuster and pass an immigration reform bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.
This is incredibly helpful—I had been wondering recently about exactly this question of what is and isn’t possible if Democrats regain one or both houses.
These all sound like great ideas (and I’m especially excited by the idea of Raskin and potentially Whitehouse getting to be chairs rather than just ranking members, since they are wonderful!). I was wondering to what extent the following were possibilities as well:
- Getting people out of detention centers? Given the absolutely horrible treatment people are facing in these places, I feel like this should be one of the top priorities. You mentioned that we could potentially get more restrictions on ICE, so perhaps that already includes this, but I also wonder how quickly we could get people out since every minute counts with this stuff! Even if it’s impossible to free people, could we at least make the conditions okay so we’re not dealing with concentration camps?
- Ending Operation Epic Fail (aka the Iran War)? I’m curious about whether the war would have ended if the few Republicans who voted for the war powers resolution hadn’t chickened out after meeting with Trump and essentially decided to undo the resolution. But I’m not sure exactly what it would take to stop them from undoing another such resolution.
- Improving conditions in Gaza and the West Bank? I wonder if it would be at all possible to rein in Israel by conditioning arms sales/aid on changes in their behavior, or if we would really need a president on board with that too. Of course, this is controversial even among Democrats, but I wasn’t thinking of an end to all aid to Israel like what Massie proposed—just something that pressures the Israeli government to pay more attention to human rights—so perhaps we could get a large majority of Democrats and one or two Republicans on board to pass something. Or, failing that, it would at least be good to increase aid to Gaza and nearby.
Improving conditions at detention centers is very doable — that could be a condition attached to funding for DHS and ICE, and it’s one I don’t think the Republicans would fall on their sword to oppose. Getting people out of detention would be much harder, given the filibuster/veto limitations.
On Iran — the War Powers resolutions are great as a political statement that Congress doesn’t approve of the war. But they can’t actually stop the war, even if they pass, because Trump vetoes and you’d need a 2/3 vote in the Senate and House to override the veto. That leaves us with, again, the appropriations (government funding process). Theoretically, Democrats could pass a DOD budget that forbids spending $ on the war, but I don’t see getting enough Republicans on board given the certainty of a Trump veto. Democrats surely will deny the administration it’s request to raise the defense budget to $1.5 billion, and there is some leverage there — why vote to replenish all the munitions Trump has wasted in Iran if he’s going to continue to waste them? But, and I hate to say this, Congress will eventually have to spend the tens of billions needed to replenish those stocks. It’s like if your kid totals your car — you can be angry he did it, but you still need to pay for a new car.
On Israel, I don’t see Democrats agreeing to continue the aid — i.e., US taxpayer subsidized weapons, which even Netanyahu has said should end — and there will be a push to condition commercial sales of weapons. But I would not assume that simply ending aid (or even arms sales) will by itself change Israeli government conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.
Excellent column, Tom. And good luck to our democratic candidates running in the midterms. We need to stop the evil forces who are trying to destroy our fragile democracy and replace it with something we won’t be able to recognize.
Great analysis. And at least so far, by and large the losers in Democratic primaries have given their full-throated endorsement of the winners-- regardless of whether the progressive or the center/center left candidate won. That's a good sign that both factions recognize that the only people who will win from a circular firing squad are the MAGAts.
" the current Republican Congress under Trump has enacted fewer bills than any in the last 50 years"
It's exactly what they accused remote workers of who didn't want to die while doing their jobs during the pandemic: THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK. They just want to rake in a paycheck and the perks.
I don't see much to "reconcile" between "centrist" and "progressive" Democrats. There is a very small number of actual Democratic "centrists" in Congress anymore. A lot of rhetoric people are accused of being "centrists" solely on image. Looking at just their voting records, 80% of the House is progressive, and probably around 2/3rds of the Senate depending on where you put the cutoff. The Henry Cuellars and Maggie Hassans are in the minority (I avoided mentioning the Democrat with the least progressive voting record — John Fetterman — because something is really off with him.)
Thank you Tom, for a for a smart and excellent plan. I hope that those who need to hear it the most, hear it.
"They (Democrats) could deny non-essential funding to the Supreme Court until it adopts an ethics code."
I'd like to see that. But how would it be enforced?
Under the Constitution, Congress must provide funds to pay Supreme Court justices’ salaries. But it’s not obliged to pay for all the Court’s administrative expenses - staff, travel, etc. It would be pretty straightforward to include a provision in an appropriation bill conditioning that on the Court adopting an ethics code.
Very very important. I was just reading Hakeem Jeffries' excellent plan for reining in the Supreme Court. Some of the items, including this one and banning the so-called "Shadow Docket," seem very passable to me. The Supreme Court should have to justify every decision. He also includes 18-year term limits. He said after Democrats taking control Jamie Raskin will be leading this effort. Raskin is one of the most constitutional knowledgeable members of Congress and he is relentless. Read more here: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-reform-gathers-momentum
That's the deal-breaker: it cannot be enforced by themselves.
Dear Tom,
I never miss a chance to hear you out, and thanks for mentioning our broken federal agencies. I just heard that the head of wildlife refuges is being "reassigned" (read: forced out). This is just one example of the utter trashing of decades of expertise that America sorely needs to compete in this world and to safeguard our own resources. Trump is throwing away what hardworking Americans have built over the past fifty years of progress on the environment, health, and our social network at a time when outside forces increasingly threaten these sectors.
We're a federal worker household, and we've lived with the threat of job loss and financial insolvency for a decade now. Even while Joe was in office, the groundwork had been laid to hollow out our federal agencies for the next sociopath who came along. Trump knows that the glacial pace of the legal system puts people like us at a major disadvantage. Once lost, workers with singular expertise won't be coming back for another licking. What encouragement can you give civil servants now who slid past DOGE only to have to work harder with less support and more fear?
This article was a fantastic summary of what's possible in the future. (Boy, I sure wish you were helming the DNC instead of Ken Martin.) Thank you.
Thank you! I’m afraid there is little I can say to encourage federal workers who have been demoralized by the president’s disdain for them. Each has to make a decision based on his or her personal situation, knowing that if they stay, their jobs will not be as rewarding as they once were, and in some cases they may feel like they’re complicit in actions they believe to be wrong, but if they leave, they may be contributing to the further dismantlement of our government. But I would say that part of our plan for 2029 must be to create incentives for qualified federal workers who left to come back if they are inspired to do so.
Was I begging? Yes, I guess so. Your word "inspired" made me feel good, though! I'm going with that. And you did give folks an idea of the impossible choices we face. Gracias.
Yes, there are many things Democrats can do; but, if the Democrats try any of these things, they need to attach increased taxes on large corporations, millionaires and billionaires (including a billionaire wealth tax). And don't allow the threat of the Felon's veto to stop the passing of legislation. Reroute funding for ICE to putting increased police officers on the beat, increased social workers in support of the police.
Pass a comprehensive immigration bill. Let the GOP either filibuster it in the Senate or the Felon veto it. Then every Democrat can run on the GOP doing nothing and the Democratic Party working to make American lives better.
Pass the John Lewis Voting Rights and Freedom to Vote Acts and let the GOP either filibuster them in the Senate or the Felon veto them. Then in 2028, if the Democratic Party holds the Senate, House and Presidency, cancel the filibuster and pass an immigration reform bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.
This is incredibly helpful—I had been wondering recently about exactly this question of what is and isn’t possible if Democrats regain one or both houses.
These all sound like great ideas (and I’m especially excited by the idea of Raskin and potentially Whitehouse getting to be chairs rather than just ranking members, since they are wonderful!). I was wondering to what extent the following were possibilities as well:
- Getting people out of detention centers? Given the absolutely horrible treatment people are facing in these places, I feel like this should be one of the top priorities. You mentioned that we could potentially get more restrictions on ICE, so perhaps that already includes this, but I also wonder how quickly we could get people out since every minute counts with this stuff! Even if it’s impossible to free people, could we at least make the conditions okay so we’re not dealing with concentration camps?
- Ending Operation Epic Fail (aka the Iran War)? I’m curious about whether the war would have ended if the few Republicans who voted for the war powers resolution hadn’t chickened out after meeting with Trump and essentially decided to undo the resolution. But I’m not sure exactly what it would take to stop them from undoing another such resolution.
- Improving conditions in Gaza and the West Bank? I wonder if it would be at all possible to rein in Israel by conditioning arms sales/aid on changes in their behavior, or if we would really need a president on board with that too. Of course, this is controversial even among Democrats, but I wasn’t thinking of an end to all aid to Israel like what Massie proposed—just something that pressures the Israeli government to pay more attention to human rights—so perhaps we could get a large majority of Democrats and one or two Republicans on board to pass something. Or, failing that, it would at least be good to increase aid to Gaza and nearby.
Improving conditions at detention centers is very doable — that could be a condition attached to funding for DHS and ICE, and it’s one I don’t think the Republicans would fall on their sword to oppose. Getting people out of detention would be much harder, given the filibuster/veto limitations.
On Iran — the War Powers resolutions are great as a political statement that Congress doesn’t approve of the war. But they can’t actually stop the war, even if they pass, because Trump vetoes and you’d need a 2/3 vote in the Senate and House to override the veto. That leaves us with, again, the appropriations (government funding process). Theoretically, Democrats could pass a DOD budget that forbids spending $ on the war, but I don’t see getting enough Republicans on board given the certainty of a Trump veto. Democrats surely will deny the administration it’s request to raise the defense budget to $1.5 billion, and there is some leverage there — why vote to replenish all the munitions Trump has wasted in Iran if he’s going to continue to waste them? But, and I hate to say this, Congress will eventually have to spend the tens of billions needed to replenish those stocks. It’s like if your kid totals your car — you can be angry he did it, but you still need to pay for a new car.
On Israel, I don’t see Democrats agreeing to continue the aid — i.e., US taxpayer subsidized weapons, which even Netanyahu has said should end — and there will be a push to condition commercial sales of weapons. But I would not assume that simply ending aid (or even arms sales) will by itself change Israeli government conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.
This makes a lot of sense. Thanks so much for answering my questions in so much detail!
I hope they are listening to you and make the best of 2027 if they win.
Excellent column, Tom. And good luck to our democratic candidates running in the midterms. We need to stop the evil forces who are trying to destroy our fragile democracy and replace it with something we won’t be able to recognize.
Great analysis. And at least so far, by and large the losers in Democratic primaries have given their full-throated endorsement of the winners-- regardless of whether the progressive or the center/center left candidate won. That's a good sign that both factions recognize that the only people who will win from a circular firing squad are the MAGAts.
" the current Republican Congress under Trump has enacted fewer bills than any in the last 50 years"
It's exactly what they accused remote workers of who didn't want to die while doing their jobs during the pandemic: THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK. They just want to rake in a paycheck and the perks.
I don't see much to "reconcile" between "centrist" and "progressive" Democrats. There is a very small number of actual Democratic "centrists" in Congress anymore. A lot of rhetoric people are accused of being "centrists" solely on image. Looking at just their voting records, 80% of the House is progressive, and probably around 2/3rds of the Senate depending on where you put the cutoff. The Henry Cuellars and Maggie Hassans are in the minority (I avoided mentioning the Democrat with the least progressive voting record — John Fetterman — because something is really off with him.)
I wish someone would flip Fetterman's "off" switch.
I'm for all of this, Tom, let's do it! Are you advising Congressional Dems? Do!
Who do you think the Democrats should select for leadership in the House? Senate? Or do you think it should remain as it is now?
READ AND HEED!!