By John Q. Hosedrinker 
ICE agents, previously deployed controversially, are now being sent to airports due to a Department of Homeland Security shutdown, which occurred after Trump opposed a deal that would have funded other agencies while addressing ICE reforms. The deployment of these agents to manage TSA lines has yielded unclear benefits, with reports suggesting they are not improving wait times and are sometimes engaged in disruptive behavior. The initiative reportedly originated from a caller on a radio show, subsequently amplified by a conservative media personality, before being adopted by the President as his own idea.
Read the original article here
Every Democratic candidate must have an answer for this question: The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is trying to drive the party to extinction. What do they plan to do about it? This isn’t just a theoretical problem; it’s a looming crisis that demands a clear and actionable response from anyone seeking to represent the will of the people. The feeling among many is that the very foundations of democracy are under attack, and the current court seems intent on dismantling the progress made over decades, if not centuries.
A significant part of the proposed solution involves structural changes to the government itself. One prominent idea is to expand the Supreme Court to thirteen justices when Democrats have control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate, packing it with individuals who genuinely believe in democratic principles. This isn’t about simply installing loyalists; it’s about restoring balance and ensuring that the court reflects a commitment to democratic ideals. Furthermore, there’s a strong push to pass the Voter’s Rights Act and outlaw gerrymandering, measures seen as essential to protect the integrity of elections and ensure fair representation.
Beyond court-packing, the conversation quickly turns to more radical, yet for many, necessary, reforms. Some advocate for abolishing the Supreme Court altogether and establishing the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, a system where the legislature holds ultimate authority. This perspective views the court’s current actions as a perversion of its intended role, leading to a desire for a complete overhaul. The notion of impeaching and prosecuting corrupt justices, particularly those accused of open corruption like Thomas and Alito, is also a recurring theme, reflecting a deep frustration with perceived abuses of power and a belief that accountability is long overdue.
The practicalities of implementing such sweeping changes are, of course, acknowledged. To achieve these goals, Democrats would need to secure not just the presidency but also a supermajority in both the House and the Senate. This highlights the critical importance of electoral success as the first step towards any meaningful reform. If that electoral success is achieved, then the question of how to address the court’s actions becomes a tangible and urgent policy priority.
There’s a palpable sense that the current system is broken, and incremental adjustments are insufficient. The idea of fundamentally restructuring the judiciary, for instance, by expanding the court to twenty-seven justices and implementing a system where new presidents can only nominate a limited number of new members, is floated as a way to prevent future abuses. Similarly, amending the Constitution to enshrine voting rights as a fundamental protection, abolishing the Electoral College to ensure the popular vote winner prevails, and ending gerrymandering through measures like post-election heat map assignments for representatives are all presented as crucial steps.
The discussion extends to representation itself, with proposals to uncap the House of Representatives and expand it, incorporating guaranteed proportional representation into the Constitution. The argument is that modern technology can easily handle a larger body of representatives, and the original rationale for capping the House is now obsolete. Expanding the number of Senators to reflect the total US population, rather than being tied to outdated historical numbers, is also suggested.
Term limits are another significant point of discussion, with proposals for twenty years on the Supreme Court, two terms for senators, and three terms for House members. The idea of recall elections for Supreme Court justices and other appointed officials, with a requirement for a supermajority vote for reconfirmation if recalled, is also put forward as a mechanism for greater public accountability. Furthermore, amending the Constitution to end the Unitary Executive and limit the power of pardon, or make it a joint power with legislative and judicial oversight, is seen as a way to curb executive overreach. Empowering courts to enforce rulings against the government, rather than assuming good-faith action, is also considered vital.
A related concern is the lack of robust, real-time fact-checking in political discourse. The suggestion of a system that provides a “Chance of being true” score for politicians and news outlets, especially for figures like Trump, is meant to counter misinformation and hold public figures accountable for their statements. This is seen as a necessary component of a healthy democracy, particularly when dealing with what some perceive as attempts to undermine democratic institutions.
The frustration with the current state of affairs leads to some more extreme, yet perhaps understandable, suggestions. Some propose impeaching and prosecuting corrupt judges, and even jailing them for transgressing the Constitution. Others suggest packing the court to twenty-three justices, with fourteen-year term limits and greater transparency in deliberations. The idea of Democrats actively pushing the party further left by supporting progressives in primaries, and then, upon gaining control of Congress, impeaching justices and dismantling the “Republican judicial network” and “propaganda machine” is a vision of a decisive, almost revolutionary, approach.
However, there’s also a recognition that the political landscape is deeply polarized, and that Republican voters have been consistently voting “red no matter what” for decades, leading to their current influence. Conversely, the Democratic base is seen by some as susceptible to divisive rhetoric. The burden, therefore, is also placed on voters to be more informed and discerning.
The question of whether Democratic leadership is even willing or able to enact these changes is a point of contention. Some criticize Democratic leadership for being too polite, for engaging in “finger wagging” rather than decisive action. The idea of Democrats switching parties to “Republican in name only” to force voters to choose based on policy is a radical proposal stemming from a desire to break through partisan inertia. Another cynical take is that the party will simply continue its current path of fundraising and seeking lucrative post-political careers, letting the current system collapse.
The idea of a constitutional convention is also raised, but with the caveat that if it fails, court-packing and instructing officials to ignore Supreme Court decisions during the Roberts tenure becomes the next recourse. The fundamental issue, for many, is that the minority party, or a determined minority within the electorate, seems to have disproportionate power due to institutional structures. The hope is that by expanding the court and implementing term limits, the court can regain impartiality, a quality that has been eroded by its current structure.
Ultimately, the core of the question boils down to a demand for a proactive, robust, and decisive plan. The feeling is that Democrats have been too passive, too attached to norms that the opposition has abandoned. The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court is not seen as a temporary setback, but as a deliberate effort to fundamentally alter the country’s direction, and every Democratic candidate needs to articulate a clear and compelling strategy to counter this perceived existential threat to democracy.