Without control of the White House, there is of course only so much Democrats can do with their newfound power. And in the context of the myriad horrors of the first half of President Donald Trump’s second term, talking about what the party “should” do next is roughly analogous to deciding which out-of-control forest fire to fight first: There is not enough water, there are lots of worthy candidates, and all of them are getting worse. 

One thing must be true, though: Whatever issues Democratic lawmakers choose to focus on—and, as the 2028 ideas primary gets underway, whatever ambitious ideas Democratic presidential hopefuls choose to support—the party must also have a plan for taking on the Supreme Court, which remains an existential threat to anything Democrats might hope to accomplish. Even if the party is fortunate enough to win a trifecta—the House, the Senate, and the White House—in 2028, things like a Green New Deal and Medicare for All and a new Voting Rights Act do not stand a chance before this six-justice conservative supermajority. Regrettably, what I wrote in 2020 is just as true today: If Congress passes any one of these proposals into law, the only real question is which justice ends up writing the opinion that kills it.

      • OwOarchist@pawb.socialBanned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        3 days ago

        Impeachment of Supreme Court justices doesn’t involve the courts at all. It’s done solely through Congress.

          • adarza@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 days ago

            anything the shitstain doesn’t like also requires a two-thirds majority (of both chambers) to override his veto.

            the bar is slightly lower for impeachment, as laying the charges only requires simple majority in the house.

            • TWeaK@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Yes, but that’s even worse as it requires more Republican representatives to flip.

        • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          3 days ago

          SCOTUS settles numerous disputes and could, like they did in the early 2000s, change the outcome of contested elections. If they do so to those that may have the plan to impeach the court, there is little anyone can do to stop them. Therefore expanding the court first takes priority, to prevent the court from retaliation.

          • OwOarchist@pawb.socialBanned
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            You want to expand the Supreme Court before the next election?

            Tell me, who nominates Supreme Court justices for the Senate to vote on?

          • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 days ago

            Actually, that would have to be the opposite order. The court can’t be expanded until there isn’t a republican in the Whitehouse. So priority must be given to impeachment so that the current bad actors don’t try to overturn the next election to save themselves.