By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Heat Advisory remains in effect until 8 PM EDT Friday for Southern Piscataquis, Coastal Hancock, Interior Hancock, and Southern Penobscot Counties, with heat index values potentially reaching 101 degrees Fahrenheit. During this time, hot temperatures and high humidity may lead to heat-related illnesses. Separately, an Air Quality Alert for particle pollution is in effect from midnight tonight through midnight EDT Sunday night, with levels expected to reach “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” periodically. Sensitive individuals, including the very young, older adults, and those with respiratory or heart conditions, are advised to limit strenuous outdoor activity if visibility is poor or smoke is smelled.
Read the original article here
The claim that Republicans have “stole” Supreme Court seats, specifically in 2016 and 2020, has been a focal point of discussion among Democratic senators, leading to renewed calls for expanding the court. This sentiment stems from a perceived hypocrisy in how the GOP handled judicial nominations during different election cycles, ultimately shaping the court’s current ideological balance. The core of the argument centers on the contrast between the Republican-led Senate’s refusal to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination by President Obama in 2016, citing the proximity to an election, and their subsequent swift confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination by President Trump in 2020, also shortly before an election.
This differential treatment, as seen by many Democrats, represents a significant departure from established norms and a deliberate effort to secure a conservative majority on the bench. The refusal to even grant hearings for Garland, on the grounds that the choice of a Supreme Court nominee should be left to the next president, was presented as a principled stand. However, the subsequent speed with which Barrett was confirmed, effectively circumventing the very precedent they claimed to uphold, has fueled accusations of a double standard and political opportunism. This strategic maneuvering, according to this perspective, has resulted in Republicans “stealing” two seats that might otherwise have been filled by nominees from Democratic presidents.
The proposed solution to this perceived imbalance is the expansion of the Supreme Court. The argument is that by adding a set number of justices, the current conservative majority could be diluted, restoring a more ideologically balanced court. Specifically, some have proposed adding four seats to bring the total number of justices to thirteen, which would aim to create a seven-to-six majority that is considered more in line with what might have been if the events of 2016 and 2020 had unfolded differently, or if precedents had been consistently applied.
This call for expansion is not seen as a radical departure but rather as a necessary corrective measure. The proponents emphasize that such an expansion can be achieved through statutory means, meaning it would not require a constitutional amendment, making it a more attainable goal. The urgency of this matter is underscored, with the belief that it should be a top priority for Democrats. The legislative path forward, they argue, is clear and achievable if there is the political will to pursue it.
Furthermore, the argument for expansion is often framed as a response to the actions of the Republican party, particularly figures like Mitch McConnell, who is frequently cited as instrumental in blocking Garland’s nomination and then facilitating Barrett’s confirmation. The “stolen seats” narrative is thus directly linked to specific political strategies and decisions made by Republican leadership. This perspective suggests that the GOP initiated a process of altering Supreme Court norms for political gain, and Democrats should now respond in kind to rebalance the court.
Beyond the immediate concern of perceived stolen seats, there’s a broader discussion about the long-term implications of the court’s composition and the need for systemic reforms. Some proponents of expansion also advocate for other measures, such as establishing term limits for justices or ensuring that the number of justices aligns with the number of federal circuit courts. These additional proposals aim to create a more stable and representative judicial system, less susceptible to the partisan battles that have characterized recent nomination processes.
The idea of expanding the Supreme Court is met with various reactions and counterarguments. Some express skepticism about the political feasibility of such a move, especially if Democrats do not hold firm control of both the White House and the Senate. Others argue that focusing on the “stolen seats” justification might not be the strongest argument for expansion, suggesting that a more practical rationale, like matching the number of justices to the circuit courts, might be more persuasive. There’s also a segment that believes the focus should be on holding Republicans accountable for their actions rather than simply changing the court’s size.
Despite these varied viewpoints, the central claim that Republicans effectively “stole” two Supreme Court seats in 2016 and 2020, by blocking one nomination and expediting another under contrasting circumstances, remains a powerful motivator for the current push to expand the court. This narrative highlights a perceived erosion of democratic norms and a strategic power play that, in the eyes of many Democrats, necessitates a bold response to restore balance and fairness to the nation’s highest court.