Post

Statements from Dems like this one make it harder to press for Supreme Court reform. This ruling was a near-disaster and shows how unhinged SCOTUS has become—now just one vote away from overturning the 14th Amendment. But a sitting senator says they "applaud" the ruling.

And here's a similar one from the DNC. SCOTUS didn't "emphatically reject" the anti-birthright arguments. It barely did, by the skin of its teeth.

I read ~20 press releases from Dems & progressive groups that hit my inbox on the birthright ruling. They all sound exactly like those shared above. "Applauding," SCOTUS "reaffirms," "victory for rule of law," etc. Not one warns how close this was to a loss, or makes the case for SCOTUS reform.

Here's a better one, but for those who care about democracy, this case needs to be used as a jumping-off point to make the argument for SCOTUS reform.

I'm sharing this one, too, because it's not just moderate Dems missing the moment here. Folks are taking a victory lap or breathing a sigh of relief when it's a five-alarm fire.

I'm not criticizing these responses to dunk on Dems. I'm saying that powerful people utterly misunderstand the moment and are missing a critical opportunity to make the case for SCOTUS reform. I even wonder whether they understand the need for it.

This is the best response to this decision I've seen so far from a sitting member of Congress.

I now heard that: 1) there were 2 dissenting votes; 2) it was 6-3; 3) now it is a 5-4. What was it?

Problem is not the designed structure of the Supreme Co, but the current makeup of SCOTUS. Most members represent popular ideas from 18th & 19th centuries about presidential executive authority, women's place in society, government's role as social support, & white superiority. The world has grown.

The problem also includes "how did the current makeup get there" and "what do we do now that they are here" and the answer to both shows the need for court reform. It doesn't matter if a non-existent, theoretical court with the same structure works fine, the actual court here/now has to be changed.

Is there not a simple reform: make the appointments non-political?

I've gone back and forth on this a lot, and it's be really hard to do. Beyond the practicality (it'd take a constitutional amendment), the big problem is there's no real way to make the appointments non-political without also making the court dangerously unaccountable.