Thread by @MondaireJones

The way we talk about court expansion is important. It’s not about Democrats vs. Republicans. Justice John Paul Stevens was a Republican. So was David Souter.

Due to the hyper-partisan majority on today’s Supreme Court, expansion is about what it means to live in a democracy.

In 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act by near-unanimous margins: 390-33 in the House, and 98-0 in the Senate. President Bush signed it into law.

The Supreme Court gutted it in 2013.

Almost immediately, Jim Crow returned, and our democracy unraveled.

The current Congress made its first order of business to fix democracy by passing the For The People Act (H.R. 1).

The next Congress will surely do the same -- and this time, we'll have a President who will sign it.

But the Supreme Court will almost certainly strike it down.

The Constitution tells us what to do when the Supreme Court won't respect the will of the people.

Congress can adjust the size of the Court.

It has done so 7 times before. This is an idea with deep roots in American history.

So let's be clear about what court expansion is really about.

It's about asserting that our government answers to We, The People.

It's about holding power to account.

It's about our constitutional guarantee to democracy -- and not allowing anyone to take that from us.