By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has shifted the gerrymandering landscape against Democrats, notably through rulings that limit federal courts’ ability to address partisan gerrymandering and weaken the Voting Rights Act. These decisions have enabled Republican-controlled states to redraw congressional maps, often to the detriment of minority representation. Consequently, Democrats face significant electoral hurdles, with some suggesting judicial reform, including expanding the Supreme Court, as a necessary step to regain power and advance their agenda.
Read the original article here
It’s now clearer than ever that Democrats must pack the Supreme Court. The current composition of the court, and the circumstances that led to it, have made this issue undeniably urgent. The perception that the court has become a partisan entity, rather than an impartial arbiter of justice, is widespread, and this perception is fueled by actions that have undermined established norms and public trust. The idea that Democrats need to expand the court stems from a deep-seated concern that the existing nine justices are not representative of the nation’s diverse perspectives and that their decisions are increasingly driven by ideology rather than by a strict adherence to the law.
The need for this structural reform is particularly acute when one considers the historical context. The events of 2016, when judicial appointments were perceived as being strategically blocked to benefit a particular political party, marked a significant turning point. This move, which felt like a deliberate act to shape the court’s future for years to come, signaled to many that the court had become a political battlefield. The implications of this were not lost on those who believe in a balanced judiciary; it highlighted how partisan maneuvering could solidify a particular ideological bent on the bench for a generation, especially given the lifetime appointments.
Furthermore, the current push for structural reforms within the Democratic party emphasizes that simply winning elections is not enough; there needs to be a fundamental rebalancing of power in institutions like the Supreme Court. The obstacle to achieving such reforms is the immediate lack of sufficient political power. As Republicans continue to consolidate their influence through various means, including electoral strategies like redestricting, the challenge for Democrats to enact meaningful change becomes even more formidable.
For Democrats to effectively address the imbalances they perceive, they would need to secure a significant mandate – an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress and control of the White House. With such power, the focus would then shift to concrete actions. These actions would include not only packing and amending the court to ensure more equitable representation and to implement a robust code of ethics but also tackling other critical issues. Among these are overturning landmark decisions that have reshaped campaign finance, such as Citizens United, and reinforcing protections for voting rights, particularly in the face of efforts to suppress them.
Beyond court reform, a comprehensive agenda would involve codifying new voting rights to proactively combat voter suppression and election subversion. These efforts would also need to address the historical inequities stemming from past racialist and segregationist policies. The aspiration extends to eliminating gerrymandering by establishing independent redistricting commissions in every state, thereby fostering a more representative electoral landscape. A thorough investigation into campaign finance corruption, including the influence of dark money groups and foreign election interference, would be paramount, leading to the establishment of necessary guardrails and oversight agencies.
The vision for reform also includes stringent regulation of Super PACs, the promotion of publicly funded campaigns, and the implementation of absolute donor transparency with immediate reporting requirements. A key objective would be to curb the disproportionate influence of billionaires in elections and policy-making. However, it is acknowledged that this ambitious agenda is more of a wish list than an immediate reality, given the entrenched opposition from establishment politicians across the aisle who often prioritize maintaining the status quo.
The sentiment is that without a willingness to break from traditional political behavior, significant change is unlikely. The current system, with lifetime appointments, inherently leads to partisan judges as long as politicians are the ones doling out these positions. There’s a palpable frustration that even when opportunities arise, such as when a Democratic administration is in power, the political will to enact bold reforms like expanding the court is often absent. This inaction, it is argued, allows the judiciary to remain an extension of partisan battles rather than a neutral body.
The hope for these changes to occur often feels like a message broadcasted into the past, a plea for a different course of action. The argument is that any substantive change, like altering the court’s size, requires a significant shift in power and a sustained commitment that transcends single election cycles. Without this, any gains could be easily reversed by future administrations. The perception that Democrats are not equipped with the necessary resolve or courage to take such decisive action contributes to the feeling that these reforms are perpetually out of reach.
There is a strong belief that the Supreme Court’s immense power is, in part, a consequence of the Democratic party’s own perceived passivity. If Democrats were to take decisive steps, such as expanding the court, the argument goes, they might face significant opposition, but the necessity of such an action, given the current state of affairs, is increasingly undeniable. Some even propose a more radical approach, suggesting an expansion of the court by hundreds of judges to effectively force a constitutional amendment and a complete overhaul of the judicial system, though this is seen as highly improbable due to a lack of grassroots pressure and political will.
The argument for accountability is also strong. Instead of simply packing the court, some suggest prosecuting corrupt judges who are perceived to be acting as political operatives rather than impartial jurists. The notion that a judge can profit from rulings that benefit specific groups is seen as a clear indicator of corruption that warrants legal action. The current Supreme Court, in the eyes of many, has made decisions that appear designed to benefit a particular political agenda, leading to accusations of partisanship and a betrayal of the Constitution. This perception fuels the argument that Democrats must not only expand the court but also ensure accountability for those they believe have abused their power. The calls for term limits and age limits on judicial appointments also reflect a desire to prevent the excessive consolidation of power and to ensure a more dynamic and responsive judiciary. Ultimately, the core message is that the current moment demands bold action from Democrats, and packing the Supreme Court is seen by many as a necessary, albeit controversial, step to restore balance and trust in the nation’s highest court.