Talk about impeaching judges who took bribes now. Expand the court next.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2026
73 points (96.2% liked)
politics
31754 readers
4287 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The latter would make the former infinitely more possible.
Impeachment of Supreme Court justices doesn't involve the courts at all. It's done solely through Congress.
SCOTUS settles numerous disputes and could, like they did in the early 2000s, change the outcome of contested elections. If they do so to those that may have the plan to impeach the court, there is little anyone can do to stop them. Therefore expanding the court first takes priority, to prevent the court from retaliation.
Actually, that would have to be the opposite order. The court can't be expanded until there isn't a republican in the Whitehouse. So priority must be given to impeachment so that the current bad actors don't try to overturn the next election to save themselves.
Pointless until we have a Dem in the White House
Start with impeaching the corrupt fucks instead
Also good
We could pass a Constitutional Amendment to reform the Court however we want, and the President doesn't get a say. But it will take 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States on board. That will be a hard bargain in these divided times.
What you can do with legislation is add justices to the court. So, if Democrats manage to take all branches of government in 2028, the very first bill they should pass into law is a bill to add 4 new seats to the court, effective in time for the start of the next Court session in September, nuking the fillibuster if necessary. Then, that's the point where they go to Republicans and say "Work with us on a court reform amendment now, or President Newsom will appoint 4 progressive judges in their early 40's to life terms on the Court, no backsies". I bet that amendment gets passed in 6 months.
Start saying it now, let the GOP make a show of stopping it, and make it clear that if Dems win the trifecta in 2028 this country will have a very beautifying makeover.
There's no point in expanding the Supreme Court until Trump is out of office.
Any new Supreme Court justices would have to be nominated by Trump, and he's never going to nominate anyone you'd want to see on the Supreme Court.
If you expand the court now, the best case scenario is that those seats remain vacant until after the next presidential election. (The worst case scenario is that Trump somehow manages to get nominations approved in the Senate, and now you've just given Trump more Supreme Court picks.)
Tbf it does say “talk about” expansion. In preparation for a 2028 win, one expects.
While a much larger reform and/or constitutional amendment is probably necessary, I think the most reasonable short-term compromise I'd pitch would be one new seat per presidential term. That's a gradual enough expansion to avoid any accusations of trying to pack the courts all at once while one party has control.
The SC would just rule it unconstitutional and end of story. Why are we talking about this? Even FDR couldn't do it.
What we do have a mechanism to do is impeach Justices and plenty of cause to do so.
Well, no, they’re not able to strike down laws because they want to. Presuming competent aides draft a Constitutionally-adherent law they can’t say shit.
Besides, this should be in concert with impeaching Clarence, Alito, and Boof.
They literally did this with parts of the constitution already
My favorite is the little carve out they gave themselves for banning free speech around the SC building.
They struck down parts of the Constitution?
Basically any part that limits the President. Engaged in rebellion, not a hurdle. Take care to execute laws, too much of a hassle. Power of the purse, might as well be his.
Mmm I’m not sure that’s the case, but they absolutely have been corrupt holes for trump.
Firstly, trump would have to admit he’s starting a coup, then he’d have to prove his coup is part of his Presidential duties, which. If you’re buying that I got a bunch of bridges in Arizona to sell.
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.
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?
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.
Not literally revolving justices, but rather adding enough new justices each time to establish a majority.
That never happened before when the court was expanded. We always ended up waiting until long after it became necessary for the next expansion.
So like a constant stream of court expansion bills?
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.
Cool. I can't wait until I'm a Supreme Court Justice.
Nah. It’s mucking too much with the Constitution and undoubtedly will be used against the country the very minute Republicans regain Congressional majority. That and DC statehood (DC is separate for a reason) are just dumb ideas.
Focus our efforts on overturning Citizens United and reforming the manner in which campaign finances work.
And absolutely prosecute every last bit of corruption and profiteering done by any politician. Make Congress a means of public service far and above any means of making money.
Part of today's problems are because we don't muck with the Constitution enough. I used to think of myself as a Constitutionalist, but learned that those who go by that name see it both as a sacred document but one they can interpret however they feel. It was designed and planned to be changed with the times, and we haven't done a great job doing that.