I mean they could try just giving up on some of the races they’re in. That would save money at least. What the fuck should they be doing?
…they should be acting as if the mid-terms are the last chance to save democracy in America. Because it probably is.
So this comes back to you think they should say they’re going to pack the courts. Because otherwise they would get asked what they’re going to do about the impending demise of democracy and they’re just going to 
…nope.
I don’t even know what to say about this. What should they say to the American people? They should tell them the truth. Not to have a “super-secret-plan to expand the courts” if they get lucky and get enough votes.
They’ve taken packing the courts off the table. That’s fine. We get it.
So in the absence of expanding the courts: what’s the plan? What congressional races need to be won? Where do you put your money, your resources, your political capital? What is the plan for what you will do if you win those races? How are you planning on dealing with a rogue Supreme Court?
Like what issues are they campaigning on? January 6, the normal nominations they get to make and related issues (abortion, gay marriage etc.), the economy, equality wrt race, gender, sexuality etc.
…this isn’t a strategy.
Those same wizards decided that the right to gay marriage is protected by the Constitution. I happen to agree with that. Millions didn’t, especially at first. I assure you many were outraged that the court “manufactured” this right out of thin air. Packing the court as a response (or refusing to let a nominee have a hearing) is not the solution. If for no other reason, over time, both parties will get to fill those seats and we’ll end up with the same problem if Republicans keep acting the way they are. Instead of losing 6-3, we’ll be losing 8-5.
So your strategy is “lie to the voters?” Because the arguments that have convinced YOU that this is necessary are far too complex for the unwashed masses to ever be able to grasp?
Seems to me that if we win the midterms and try this in 2023, voters would be well justified in saying “Wait, isn’t this the sort of thing you should have mentioned during the campaign?” If we want to do it, we should be able to make a case for it.
That’s not how American democracy works. We have 435 Congressional candidates, who all won their primaries and get to decide how to best campaign in their districts. The party leadership doesn’t get to choose their own candidates, so they can’t demand that those candidates follow any particular campaign strategy. Many Democrats are in fact calling for reforming the Court, while others are not. We can only hope that most of them are making the choice most likely to win in their district. Once they get into Congress, the leadership has sticks and carrots to get them in line, but during campaign season not so much.
I’ll reiterate my strategy (which is borrowed from Josh Marshall): campaign on reproductive rights, saying clearly that if we hold the House and get 2 more Senators we will bypass the filibuster to codify Roe v Wade into law. That’s it – that’s the entire message. Over and over again, that very simple message that “2 more Senators and we can protect choice across the country”. It’s very likely that, were that to occur, the SCOTUS would overturn it. But we shouldn’t campaign on what might go wrong – we should campaign to WIN. So first step, 2 more Senators, and codify Roe into law. Then, if SCOTUS overturns it, either expand SCOTUS or remove their ability to rule on reproductive rights. The outrage if SCOTUS were to overturn such a law would make this much, much easier to sell than it is now.
That’s the winning strategy, and that wins either way (as long as we get those 2 more Senators). But first, we have to win those 2 extra seats (and hold the House). This maximizes that chance, with a clear and simple strategy that is already very popular (unlike expanding the SCOTUS), with the backstop of expanding SCOTUS if necessary when the outrage will make it much easier.
IMO, anyway.
That might be a reasonable strategy if reproductive rights were the only issue on which SCOTUS was opposed to mainstream American values. But they’re also taking away all our other Constitutional rights, such as voting rights and the right to a fair trial. They appear poised in the near future to allow States to criminalize homosexuality itself, forget about the right to marriage. Not only abortion but all other forms of birth control will be illegal if this Court gets its way. With gerrymandered State legislatures empowered to award Electoral votes directly without consent of the voters, there will be no practical way to remedy any of this through the electoral process.
The repeal of Roe was only the first shot; Pearl Harbor, if you will. We can’t respond by saying, in effect, “Japan needs to pay for the ships and promise never to do that again”. We need to say “The people who ordered that attack must be removed from power by any means necessary”.
The problem with that message is that it does nothing to motivate voters in states where there are no Senate seats realistically at stake. Illinois already has two Dem senators, and Duckworth is heavily favored to win re-election. Will Illinois Dems be motivated to not just vote for Duckworth, but to donate to and/or volunteer for Ron Johnson’s Dem opponent in Wisconsin?
(Well, I am, but I think I’m likely an outlier. And many Dem voters don’t have a beatable GOP senator right across the state line.)
There are plenty of Congressional candidates in purple districts in Illinois who would be happy to have some quality time with your checkbook.
People look at polls and see this idea isn’t too popular NOW, with a Democratic President and Congressional leadership opposed to it. If the centrist Democrats start hearing the message from Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi that this is something Our Team supports, the polls will move dramatically.
Approval for gay marriage among Blacks went from 40% to 60% in literally one day, when Obama came out in favor. Leadership: It’s a thing.
That’s true, but Roe is a big winning message, politically speaking. I think that’s the best chance to win the election. Once we’ve won, we should do that stuff too, but the messaging should be about what’s most popular.
Another factor to consider: A major political party making a serious push for Court reform, even if it doesn’t succeed, may well frighten the Court into moderating its decisions in the future. That’s largely what happened in 1937; FDR’s plan failed and it was widely viewed as a humiliating defeat for him. But suddenly the Court, with no change in its members, became notably more liberal, and poor humiliated FDR only won two more landslide re-elections.
Uh, no. First, the word “shall” prohibits Congress from completely removing a case from the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
Second, from the former part of the clause you quoted out of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when a State is a party.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
For example after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, South Carolina asked the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue an injunction against Attorney General Katzenbach from enforcing it, under the Court’s original jurisdiction. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). A federal Roe-style law could be challenged in the same manner.
~Max
…the Republican strategy going into the midterms is very clear. They have put the culture war front-and-centre. CRT. Groomers. Abortion.
So it obviously can be the way American democracy works.
And we’ve seen how hard the Democrat leadership comes down on messaging they don’t like. Look what they did to “defund the police.”
We know that they are capable of being crystal clear on what their strategy would be going into the midterms. There might be 435 Congressional candidates, who all get to decide how to best campaign in their districts. But we aren’t just talking about what people are campaigning on in their districts. Strategy is about more things than just what people campaign on.
And, in hindsight, the whole thing is really silly, don’t you think? An unelected partisan council of wizards, accountable to absolutely no one, has the final say on what can and can’t be done. Don’t you think that’s a tad stupid?
“Refusing to let a nominee have a hearing” actually was the solution here. It worked. It changed the balance of the courts: probably for a generation.
There aren’t very many options left. Either you do something about the current situation, or you don’t. And we know what the “if we don’t” option looks like. Gay marriage gone. Protections for transgender people gone. Voting rights screwed.
And after those rights are gone people won’t fight back. People have already started to settle into the “new normal” of the post-Wade world.
I’ve already said that expanding the courts won’t work in isolation. It is absolutely imperative that the Democrats hold the House, the Senate and the Presidency at the next round of elections. We all know this.
But it can’t stop there. The stakes are going to be exactly the same for every single election after that.
Because the Republican Party isn’t suddenly going to grow a moral backbone overnight. The party of Trump, the party with Qanon candidates in 26 States, isn’t going anywhere.
There is blood in the water and they smell victory. You either fight them now, you push back now, you decide to not let them get power ever again now, or they win.
There is no future where the Republicans and Democrats alternate power with relatively little drama like they used to. Those days are over. The Republicans are just going to keep acting the way that they are. They will get worse.
This isn’t a war you are winning. Expanding the courts wouldn’t be anything other than a “rearguard action” to buy you time to get other things done.
But again: everything I’ve said here is academic. I am, to be blunt, not hopeful.
You know the main thing the GOP is actually putting front and center is the economy. And then after that probably immigration and crime.
Sadly - not super likely. 