If Senate Democrats do not threaten to expand the Supreme Court after Republicans install a justice in the middle of an election (or during the lame duck), they will have effectively surrendered. There is no other proportional response. It’s court expansion or nothing.
Republicans established new rules: The party in power can use any tool at its disposal to seize the Supreme Court, within explicit constitutional limits. Democrats will solve nothing if they unilaterally disarm. They can either adopt the new rules and expand the court, or die.
Democratic senators who won’t support court expansion as a proportional response to this power grab should be treated as cowards and dupes of the right. Republicans have ruthlessly shattered all norms and principles to seize the judiciary. Democrats must respond in kind.
Progressives should be inundating Democratic senators with calls demanding to know their plan if Trump installs a new justice. “First we try to stop him” isn’t good enough. We need to know what Democrats intend to do when Plan A fails and Republicans seize the Supreme Court.
RBG’s death is the biggest crisis of Trump’s entire presidency but too many progressives are consumed by the election to grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe unfolding before our eyes. Republicans are poised to obliterate the progressive agenda for decades. This is THE fight.
Also: “Republicans are hypocrites” is not a plan. Democratic senators don’t need to tell us how unprincipled Republicans are. We know. Republicans don’t care. Democrats need to talk about the material consequences of a far-right SCOTUS, like the imminent eradication of the ACA.
A far-right Supreme Court threatens everything Democrats support. The ACA. Roe v. Wade. Marriage equality. One person, one vote. Voting rights. Gun safety laws. Carbon regulations. Affirmative action. Unions. Campaign finance laws. Redistricting reform. It is ALL on the table.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Supreme Court also sends NINE Chevron cases back down to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of Loper Bright. The disruption officially begins: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
The Supreme Court vacates an 8th Circuit decision that had granted North Dakota lawmakers a "legislative privilege" from discovery in an important Native redistricting case, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the dispute has become moot. (KBJ dissents.) supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
🚨The Supreme Court rules that President Trump has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution for all "official acts" he took while in office. The vote is 6–3 with all three liberals dissenting. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Sotomayor, dissenting: Today's decision shields presidents from prosecution "for criminal and treasonous acts" and "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's second decision is NetChoice. Justice Kagan's complicated opinion for the court remands both cases to the appeals courts for the proper analysis of a First Amendment facial challenge, which, she says, they flunked the first time. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
HOWEVER: Kagan's opinion for the court holds that content moderation IS "expressively activity" and that social media platforms ARE protected by the First Amendment, no matter their size, from state intrusion. That's a major holding. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Kagan says social media platforms engage in protected speech when moderating content posted by third parties, and Texas' alleged interest in interfering with that practice amounts to the "suppression of free expression, and it is not valid" under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court's first decision is Corner Post. By a 6–3 vote, the majority allows plaintiffs to challenge an agency action LONG after it has been finalized. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
This article explains why today's outcome in Corner Post will be so destabilizing to the administrative state—it means that agency actions are never really safe from legal assault, even decades after they're finalized. It's a really big deal. americanprogress.org/article/corner…
In her dissent, Justice Jackson urges Congress to enact a new law to "forestall the coming chaos" created by today's decision, reimposing the statute of limitations that had, until now, prevented new plaintiffs from endlessly challenging regulations. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
🚨The Supreme Court overrules Chevron deference, wiping out 40 years of precedent that required federal courts to defer to expert opinions of federal agencies. All three liberals dissent. This is a HUGE decision. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations. Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift.
Today's ruling is a massive blow to the "administrative state," the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers' rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's first decision is Grants Pass. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that penalizing homeless people for sleeping outside when there is no available shelter does NOT violate the 8th Amendment. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's decision in Grants Pass wipes out significant precedent in the 9th Circuit that had protected homeless people from punishment when they slept outside due to lack of shelter. Per Gorsuch, the court holds that penalizing such people is not "cruel and unusual."
In dissent, Sotomayor says punishing people who sleep outside for lack of other options—through both civil penalties and jail time—is "unconscionable and unconstitutional," and faults the majority for spurning the "humanity and dignity of homeless people." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…