Outlandish predictions. That’s what I was told expanding SCOTUS is and it was supported by a person who uses his wealth to push wagers on people to shut them up. I don’t see it that way. I think that there is no alternative to expanding the Court that protects and defends all that is at risk from ACB occupying the seat formerly held by the notorious RBG.
The people to whom expanding the court is outlandish are the forced birthers who don't mind Roe vs Wade being overturned or seeing the ACA terminated or seeing the 14th Amendment questioned or more gutting of the VRA. White men and the women who willingly subjugate themselves to these men .
Look at the wide participation in the last action by Schumer. What some don't seem to understand that the rest of us do is (1) the huge shift in the balance of the court due to this replacement of RBG w/ ACB (2) who RBG was to so many of us and the importance of her voice (3) the consequence if we don't expand the court - everything we hold dear is up for grabs and (4) the egregious nature of the hypocrisy and (5) Trump crimes could come up. That's why expanding the court has gone mainstream. There are retrogrades even here at Daily Kos as is evident from this conversation I had earlier, but the party won't stand for inaction. There is no alternative. There is no other way to protect the ACA and Roe and the VRA and the environment and any number of other issues. Trump may be prosecuted by the DOJ and it could come up to SCOTUS.
Even George Will could see this as a response by the Democratic Party which doesn't mean he supported it, but it does mean that he could see the rationale for it.
Expanding the Court is not outlandish.What is outlandish is attacking the means , the one and only means, to defend our core principles as Democrats. I can't fathom somebody having the gall to call expanding the Court outlandish after what the republicans did and considering what is at stake.
What the bets are is a discussion-ender by a person with independent means , a man whose bodily autonomy is not threatened if Roe is overturned. It's a macho Trumpian move , a put up or shut up move against people who don't have the kind of accumulated wealth that our gambler has. It's not a healthy response to a discussion about government, the attempt here by many to make the lives of those who live in this country a little better practically through politics. I don't see an alternative to expanding the court that defends all of that which is at stake. If somebody has some sort of other real solution, then say so. I am certain that everybody else here would be happy to be enlightened with the other solution. Otherwise, there is not a choice here. And I have no interest in a wager for which I have no money.
If there are other moves that could be made that would defend everything at stake that will come before SCOTUS, tell us what they are and how they defend everything we must defend.