Democrats stand poised to win a majority in both the House and the Senate after the 2018 midterm elections. If the poster boy for bad 1980s college frat boy movies is installed on the SCOTUS then democrats have very few options before them.
Do they vote to impeach and remove Judge Fratboy from the SC? They could. That would pass in the House should the Democrats regain a majority. However, it would take that magic number of 67 Senators together to vote to remove Judge Fratboy. This is often presented as the only option and if democrats are serious about protecting Roe V Wade, Healthcare (in general), immigrants, PoC, women, and every single damned inch of progress our country has made in the 20th century: then they have a golden opportunity.
There is nothing specifically in the U.S constitution that dictates the SCOTUS must be comprised of nine members. Nothing. Got that? Nothing. It’s just a tradition. Traditions are NOT LAWS. I have heard a great deal over the last twenty years of my life about respecting senate traditions and laws. That went right out the window in 2000 with Bush V Gore. That went flying down the Grand Canyon with removing the filibuster from SCOTUS nominees. Remember the “nuclear option”? A move so bold it was supposed to rock the very foundations of senate tradition. When McTurtle finally did it, after years and years of hemming and hawing over it, the outrage over it lasted half a news cycle. Half a news cycle. That was the outrage. Minor. He paid no political price.
Why do I bring this up?
It will be time soon to expand the court.
Democrats will be wise to remember that for as much as republicans cry about senate traditions, norms, ethics, whatever — they do not respect them.
Democrats when in power abide infuriatingly to every letter of the law to the point of absurdity. We saw this over and over during the Obama administration.
History has a precedent for checking evil administrations through the courts:
www.history.com/...
The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court.
Why would this number be lowered because of Andrew Johnson? Johnson assumed the presidency from Abraham Lincoln after Lincoln was assassinated. Johnson then became in charge of reconstruction and gave clemency, pardons, and power back to the very worst slave holders, war criminals, and deplorables after the war. He was a deeply evil man. There is no redeeming Andrew Johnson in history. He was very corrupt. The politicians of the time (namely the Republicans *today’s democrats) — did not want Andrew Johnson to have control of the very people who would sit in judgement of his crimes.
This directly mirrors much of the political circumstances we witnessing now.
Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire.
The New Deal was being dismantled by the Republicans of Roosevelt’s era. The arguments employed by the right against the New Deal are the very same arguments that are being invoked against the ACA, and any progressive legislation that isn’t a sop for big corporations. President Roosevelt correctly threatened to raise the number of justices to 15. If we regain the House, the Senate, and even the Presidency by 2020, democrats can not be afraid of saying they will need to raise the number of justices that sit on the SCOTUS.
Republicans don’t play nice.
They don’t respond to letters.
They don’t respond to shame.
They don’t respond to empathy.
They respond to power and force.
No democratic nominee for our party should be afraid of expanding the court. You will pay nothing in political price as republicans have demonstrated. Taking this stance will show you care about your base, and that you have the willingness to challenge evil. Instead of going high when they go low — destroy, outwit, and out politic these fascists that think they are one vote away from installing their version of The Handmaiden’s Tale.
Take a lesson from history. When they don’t play fair, we shouldn’t ether.