this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2026
106 points (97.3% liked)

politics

31754 readers
4745 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Without control of the White House, there is of course only so much Democrats can do with their newfound power. And in the context of the myriad horrors of the first half of President Donald Trump’s second term, talking about what the party “should” do next is roughly analogous to deciding which out-of-control forest fire to fight first: There is not enough water, there are lots of worthy candidates, and all of them are getting worse. 

One thing must be true, though: Whatever issues Democratic lawmakers choose to focus on—and, as the 2028 ideas primary gets underway, whatever ambitious ideas Democratic presidential hopefuls choose to support—the party must also have a plan for taking on the Supreme Court, which remains an existential threat to anything Democrats might hope to accomplish. Even if the party is fortunate enough to win a trifecta—the House, the Senate, and the White House—in 2028, things like a Green New Deal and Medicare for All and a new Voting Rights Act do not stand a chance before this six-justice conservative supermajority. Regrettably, what I wrote in 2020 is just as true today: If Congress passes any one of these proposals into law, the only real question is which justice ends up writing the opinion that kills it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

You might as well just have a rule that says each new President can appoint a fresh set of judges, because that would be the practical effect of such a change. I suppose that to many people, the idea of a Republican court during Republican presidential administrations and a Democratic court during Democratic presidential administrations is more appealing than the current court, but I'm not at the point yet where I would favor undermining the independence of the judicial branch even if that would lead to better short-term outcomes.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

each new President can appoint a fresh set of judges, because that would be the practical effect of such a change.

Why would court expansion mean revolving justices?

[–] doc@fedia.io 2 points 1 hour ago

They're advocating a slippery slope argument. If you add three, then I'll add three, and then the next person after that will add three.

I don't see that being realistic and I would hope any such expansion would have a phased-in approach to make it more palatable and fair, and less likely to be stopped or altered.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Not literally revolving justices, but rather adding enough new justices each time to establish a majority.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 50 minutes ago (1 children)

That never happened before when the court was expanded. We always ended up waiting until long after it became necessary for the next expansion.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 41 minutes ago

The court hasn't been expanded since the Civil War so I'm not sure what pattern you have in mind when you say:

We always ended up waiting until long after it became necessary for the next expansion.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

So like a constant stream of court expansion bills?

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 50 minutes ago (1 children)

Yes - if the Democrats do it, I don't think that the next time Republicans are in power they'll just accept the Democrats' Supreme Court.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 1 points 42 minutes ago

Cool. I can't wait until I'm a Supreme Court Justice.