By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article highlights two pivotal moments in the subject’s career: her 2017 hiring by The New York Times and her subsequent departure, which leveraged financial backing for the Free Press. This ascent is presented as a cautionary tale, suggesting that some liberal institutions prioritize demonstrating open-mindedness over upholding core liberal principles. The Times’ decision to hire Bret Stephens, a conservative, alongside existing conservatives like David Brooks and Ross Douthat, is questioned in light of a perceived lack of reciprocal hiring of liberal voices by conservative-leaning publications.
Read the original article here
The conversation around expanding the Supreme Court for Democrats needs to move beyond mere discussion and become a serious, actionable priority. There’s a palpable frustration stemming from past political battles, particularly the handling of judicial appointments, which has led many to believe that inaction is no longer a viable option. The argument is that the opposition has already utilized every tool at their disposal, including circumventing traditional confirmation processes, to achieve their desired outcomes on the Court. Therefore, Democrats are urged to respond with equal, if not greater, assertiveness to reclaim a balance they feel has been lost.
The current composition of the Supreme Court is viewed by many as illegitimate, with accusations of stolen appointments and confirmations that would have been impossible under previous rules. This sentiment fuels the urgency to act, suggesting that simply waiting for a more opportune moment or hoping for bipartisan consensus is a losing strategy. The idea that expanding the Court would simply lead to reciprocal actions by the opposition is dismissed by some, as they argue the current situation already represents a significant ideological win for conservatives, rendering such retaliation moot.
A significant portion of the discourse points towards egregious conduct by certain justices, specifically naming individuals and alleging bribery and tax evasion. The call for accountability extends beyond expansion, advocating for the prosecution of justices and their associates, the removal of “corrupt” individuals from the Court, and even suggestions of arrest and treason charges for those perceived as threats to the Constitution. This perspective frames the Supreme Court as deeply compromised and a barrier to a functioning democracy.
While expansion is a central theme, it’s not the only proposed solution. Many suggest a multi-pronged approach to reform the judiciary. This includes calls for congressional impeachments of corrupt justices, increased oversight, and a fundamental rethinking of campaign finance laws and the influence of money in politics. The idea of term limits for justices and a more robust ethics framework is also frequently mentioned as a necessary component of any comprehensive reform effort.
The timing of such actions is a recurring point of contention. Some argue that any move to expand the Court should only occur after Democrats regain control of both the presidency and Congress. The fear is that any premature attempt could further galvanize Republican opposition and lead to even more extreme preemptive actions. Others, however, believe that the urgency of the situation demands immediate attention, even if it means navigating a more challenging political landscape.
The practicalities of expanding the Supreme Court are also a subject of debate. Questions arise about the necessary votes in the Senate, particularly concerning the filibuster, and whether a simple majority is sufficient. The idea of concurrent expansion of the Senate, through measures like statehood for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, is also proposed as a way to address perceived imbalances in representation.
There’s a clear sentiment that Democrats have been too passive in the face of what is perceived as an escalating crisis. Some express concern that the Democratic establishment is lagging behind the severity of the political situation, failing to recognize the existential threat posed by “fascism” and “republican terrorism.” This viewpoint emphasizes the need for voters to turn out in overwhelming numbers to secure the necessary political power for meaningful reform.
The framing of the issue is also considered crucial. Some suggest that instead of using terms like “packing” or “expanding,” Democrats should adopt the language of “balancing” the Court. This strategy is seen as a way to disarm opposition and present the proposed changes as a matter of fairness and equilibrium, rather than a partisan power grab.
Ultimately, the underlying message is that the current state of the Supreme Court is unsustainable and poses a significant threat to democratic principles. Whether through expansion, impeachment, term limits, or a combination of all, the call for Democrats to engage in serious, decisive action on the Supreme Court is a powerful and recurring theme within the discourse. The expectation is that inaction will only perpetuate a problematic status quo, while bold action, even if fraught with political challenges, is necessary to safeguard the future of the country.