I don’t understand this. If this is clearly the only way to achieve the outcome that everyone says the majority of Americans want, why would you think this?
If Americans don’t WANT to stop what’s happening, then so be it. But at least give them a Democratic leadership that sets out a unified and decisive plan to act (for a change) and give the electorate a chance to vote for it.
Because a lot of Americans are conditioned to think the situation can’t possibly be this dire, and would be susceptible to the GOP narrative saying, “See? Democrats really are crazy radicals.”
12 months ago, maybe. But everyone has now seen what this Supreme Court is doing.
This is the time to present the electorate with a credible and decisive plan to stop this and tell them to get out and vote for it.
Never underestimate the complacency of the American people.
I agree, but if it backfires, we’re screwed. And if we don’t do it, we’re screwed.
What would constitute “backfiring” under these circumstances? How could it be worse? What exactly are you seeking to preserve with a “safe” milquetoast strategy?
If people of this country won’t get out and vote to preserve democracy, they will get the consequences they deserve, but we have to try.
First step is to win the November elections. I think your strategy reduces those chances because the milquetoast Americans who might otherwise vote for the Democrats might be scared by the idea of expanding SCOTUS.
Marshall’s strategy (the one I described) offers the promise of an abortion rights bill, which is very popular and should motivate pro choice Democrats and independents, including those who might be turned off by expanding SCOTUS.
Can you please link to this? I agree with your take that these moves might be more successful in motivating voters this fall than a court-packing plan.
I agree with this. Living in a democracy, you don’t always get your way. That’s true about abortion rights, gun laws, and environmental regulation. If we promoting gaming the system (packing the court) when we don’t get the results we want, we’re not that much better than the republicans who gerrymander or try (through “legal” means) to suppress voting. Is adding four justices we think will vote our way that much worse than preventing a vote for Judge Garland? Maybe, but I’m not sure. (Yes, I know the number of justices has changed throughout our history. But we’re not saying 13 justices makes more sense in the abstract, we’re saying we want four more justices to vote our way)
We need to get more people to vote the right way, for a long enough period of time, and things will swing back in the right direction. I’m not at all sure we can do that, and that sucks. Unfortunately, a huge number of our fellow citizens are deplorable. Many more “see things differently,” for reasons I can’t fathom. Perhaps we’re doomed. Supporting the immediate expansion of the Supreme Court won’t save us, IMO.
Seriously, dude? 
Possible paywall.
Snippet:
" Some people say that there’s no point passing a Roe law if you don’t reform the Court at the same time. That’s wrong. The clearest tools Congress has to rein in a corrupt Court are by either removing this issue from the Court’s appellate jurisdiction or simply adding more Justices to the Court. Both are clearly within Congress’s constitutional powers. At the moment, unfortunately, the political will and support to do those things does not exist. If you insist on making it a package deal — both pass a Roe law and bar the Court from overturning it at the same time — the outcome will be coalitional infighting and stalemate, the result of which will be nothing happening. That means no Roe law and no election win that would even make it possible. How do you build support and a constituency to rein in the Court if it doesn’t exist now? Easy. Basically have the Court strike down a Roe law.
It’s worth walking through just how that scenario plays out. That scenario would mean that the Court overruled Roe and that this triggered a backlash in which what seemed like the certain losers in the midterm election came back and won the election on the basis of that backlash. With that mandate, the new Congress passed a law making Roe‘s protections the law of the land. Then immediately the Court concocted a new set of purported founding principles that determine Congress wasn’t allowed to do that.
This is what I mean when I say that even though the risk of the Court striking down a Roe law is overstated, if you do think reforming the Court is necessary the clearest path to doing so is to pass such a law, dare the Court to strike down and then take away that power once they do so."
How can you bar the SCOTUS from overturning a law? I thought that was the whole point of having a Supreme Court – to overturn laws that it finds unconstitutional. If they can just somehow make laws SCOTUS-proof, why doesn’t Congress do it with every law?
I did appreciate this quote from the article:
Both as law and politics, it’s a very different thing to rule that there is no constitutional right to an abortion and decide that Congress has no right to make a law making abortion legal.
Well, what?
“We might upset the Republicans then they’d be really mean back to us”?
We might lose control of the Senate? We’re already hamstrung in the Senate.
The Republicans might add two more theocratic justices? What difference would that make?
Not sure about the particulars, but I think the Constitution gives congress that power. But that’s just one possibility of it’s overturned - the other is expanding the court.
So, yeah, Congress can make a law exempt from Judicial Review.
It would be taken as an admission that the law in question was unconstitutional.
No, the first step is to have November elections. What’s your plan for ensuring that?
Remember, the next major case the Supreme Court is set to decide is whether the people have the right to vote for our leaders.
I’m working on it! I’ve got a call with the white house next week to offer my suggestions, so I’ve got some time.
TIL! Has this ever been done?
Uh, no, I meant, everyone knows to not actually say the words “how can it get any worse?”!
And to me, it can get worse in terms of probability of success, not necessarily in actual results.
This is not my area of expertise, but apparently, it has.
It seems complicated and above my paygrade, but it does seem to be something that congress is able to do under certain circumstances if it wants to.
Thanks for the research. IANAL, either, but a lot of those look like laws passed specifically to deny judicial review of other laws and procedures, not laws passed with some sort of special anti-SCOTUS review coating.
It’s also interesting how a few of these were, in fact, ruled unconstitutional. So laws passed to deny judicial review were overturned by judicial review.
Anyway, interesting hijack!