Just a quick one about something that I don’t feel I hear enough of which is the need for adding justices to the Supreme Court. It’s become a more common topic but one which i suspect still hasn’t caught the imagination of the average voter. There are different rationalizations for doing this, and disputes about how many Justices to add. May I suggest that there is sole reason needed (although other arguments buttressing it are welcome)? It is because Mitch McConnell refused to give Merrick Garland a vote. He told members of his party to not even meet with him. That’s a done deal, and we have Neil Gorsuch in his place. And McConnell is on record saying that if an opening happens in Trump’s lame duck year he will gladly be the hypocrite about the ‘standards’ which compelled him to deny President Obama. For the honor of the Senate and some kind of decorum, and because of the laughing threat he promised, our party shouldn’t let that stand. It’s NOT OK If Your A Republican. How is it not a grave misstep for our party not to right this assault on decency and fair play to re-balance the court? To push back on this political attack? How else do we begin to end shenanigans like these?
And I contend the number of Justices added should be two. Two for one. A direct political rebuke against brazen dirty politics over Gorsuch the likes of which haven’t been seen for many years. Not bumping up to 13 or 15 Justices. That is over doing it and the term court packing then becomes credible. Which is it should not be. It’s a term we need to redefine and to stop using in in that old Republican framing. Tell THEM what packing is. Two more Justices are not a blatant power grab that greater numbers than than invite. And is less likely to fly with the public. But if we get their general approval with support and pressure on our Senators, tit for tat, we win the war.
Because Republicans have been packing this and out Courts. There have been dozens of unqualified candidates going to lower courts which we would not abide by. Brad from Brad’s Blog here on DKos suggested that unpacking the court is the way we should argue it. And I believe that he is right. It’s been packed activist right wing justices, since the 1980’s. Men with extremist views. Tearing down agreed law which has been reviewed by dozens of Justices, conservative and liberal, in different situations upholding established law. They are undoing decades, sometimes, more than a century of agreement. And much of it is significant in that it removes personal freedoms from people. We add freedoms. Republicans mostly add freedoms for the benefit of big businesses or their base alone.
Re-balancing the court by unpacking its activist conservative and threatened substitutes is done with a two for one addition. It rebukes a step too far by McConnell on others he would be willing to pack in politically. I hope that they will be the ideological counterparts of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but we get who we’ll get when we can. As more Justices are added the more likely settled law will remain settled. Unless if it’s egregious enough for 11 Justices to agree on. Thirteen Justices? Fifteen? I think it even less likely that old law would be repealed much. There will be greater needs for new laws in a rapidly expanding technical landscape. This benefits Democrats who want to keep the best parts of the law as they are.
Although I think that makes it crucial that we get some control of this situation now. Before more standing law is torn down. Which is why old injustices in the law must be righted sooner or later. And why we should use this ready-made excuse to unpack the right wing activist court enhanced by old Mitch (and his cousin, old Nick?) with compliments of the Majority Leader for his step too far.
I also think that if we press all of our congressional representatives and presidential candidates on this, McConnell will start being seen by Republicans as bringin the inevitability of a weakened court for them because of his lust for undoing New Deal accomplishments. If the Republican party as the guy who messed up on the Supreme Court in the future they might consider less abusive behavior. That may be an adequate warning. This is probably best done as a whispering campaign as well. Letting our representatives know we want this without suggesting to McConnell will stand. Perhaps he try it himself if he sees it as having a likelihood of success. Perhaps we need also to be ready to meet and match such a scenario. Nothing makes it impossible for him and Trump to try. Are we ready for that?
This may also take further suspensions of the filibuster to accomplish; I’m almost certain we’ll need to go there to accomplish any quick fix agenda for the American people, their pocketbooks and their freedoms. Unless we can make sweeping changes in two years time which voters see in their household balance sheets, Republicans will continue to control our political discourse. Prove those voters wrong with higher wages and lower credit debt and a lot of moderate right wingers will shut up and start paying attention. Prove to them they’ve been punked and it’s a hedge against future Republican success. And a way to slow the SCOTUS from ruling against such changes in governance.
And I’d also like to push an idea I’ve heard where all future terms are limited to 18 years. This gives time to plan, if we can sustain Democratic leadership in 2020 and well beyond, that someday conservative Justices will be replaced with new liberal ones without waiting for half a lifetime. We held Congress and the White House for decades before, as a people powered workers and justice party we demonstrated that we could do that. Over time we need the court to move back hard towards the left again and then let that become a more moderate court overall. Sustaining and adding to freedoms, justice, and opportunities.