The Alito Court's attack on the Voting Rights Act and thirs "Citizens United" decision -- legalizing unlimited campaign spending by anonymous donors -- allowed fringe elements to take over the American government. The majority of American voters rejected Trump's misogyny, racism, xenophobia, bullying and lies -- but he became President anyway. When plutocrats took over the Republican Party, American voting majorities rejected them three elections in a row -- but they controlled the House of Representatives anyway until 2019. How can we stop this from happening again?
As noted above, four of those five reactionary Justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote, and 69% of Americans oppose repealing Roe. When Alito's decision went into effect, it overturned fifty years of legal precedent and outlawed abortion in half of the country. Sign the petition to impeach all five.
"We're increasingly a country where the minority is not merely protected from the tyranny of the majority, as the nation's founders intended. We're a country where the minority rules, and under Trump, it rules tyrannically.
"McConnell is in a position to make Trump's third court appointment happen because Republicans have a Senate majority, but they have that majority not because they command the support of a larger number of Americans than their Democratic counterparts do. They command the support of fewer.
"In 2018, Democrats won 22 of the 35 Senate elections, with candidates who got roughly 17 million more votes than the Republican candidates got." Since 2014, the Republicans controlling the Senate have represented less than half the country's population.
"...A court with three Trump appointees could well restrict abortion even though most Americans support its legality in all or most cases. Such a court could also revisit gay rights, though an even bigger majority of Americans support marriage equality and an overwhelming majority believe that gay Americans should be protected from employment discrimination."
Congress must:
"Democrats have two options," Slate writes. "They can accept a half-century of far-right, partisan jurisprudence while protesting that Republicans are hypocrites. Or Democrats can stop complaining about the new rules and start playing by them. The first choice rests upon the theory that it is possible to shame politicians who've demonstrated, over and over again, that they have no capacity for shame. The second rests upon the theory that Democrats have an obligation to play constitutional hardball - not just to protect their agenda, but to save the court's legitimacy and preserve democracy itself.
"McConnell himself has altered the number of justices to influence the court's outcomes. By refusing to consider Garland, McConnell reduced the Supreme Court to an eight-member body for more than a year. Multiple Republican senators... said they would not confirm any nominees put forth by Hillary Clinton; their scheme would have reduced the court's membership indefinitely. Republicans have already legitimized the strategy of modifying the Supreme Court's membership by changing the number of justices on the bench. These tactics may be distasteful, but they are plainly lawful.
"Lawmakers would surely be tempted to reject [the Supreme Court's] decisions outright, denying the justices' authority to say what the law is. But... that threat will exist regardless of whether Democrats retaliate. Countless Americans will reject the court's legitimacy as it entrenches more and more Republican policies against the popular will. At worst, expanding the court will neutralize [McConnell's] power grab, delegitimize the court, and shift constitutional decision-making back to the democratic branches.
"It may be difficult for some Democrats to accept that the old rules governing Supreme Court nominations have gone out the window. There was once... a playbook, respected by both sides, that kept politics at arms length from the confirmation process. But McConnell lit that playbook on fire in his ruthless crusade to transform the court [system] into an arm of the GOP. Now Democrats have to decide if they will accept a partisan, far-right judiciary for the next generation or use the new rules to respond in kind."
The Atlantic added:
"...Republicans initiated this arms race by stealing the Court vacancy that was rightfully Obama's to fill in 2016. For Democrats to refrain from responding in kind would be to disarm unilaterally. As game theorists have shown, the quickest way to restore a stable equilibrium after one party in a reiterative game has repudiated a cooperative norm is to retaliate in kind. Failing to do so incentivizes only more of the norm-breaking behavior.
"...Republicans themselves will almost surely enlarge the size of the Court the first time they have the opportunity and see the need to do so. Suppose that Democrats refrain from expanding the Court in 2021-22. Next, imagine that two Republican justices are tragically killed in an automobile accident, and President Biden and the Democratic Senate replace them with two Democratic justices, restoring Democrats to the five-to-four majority they ought to have enjoyed after Scalia's death. Now suppose that, in 2024, a Republican is elected president and Republicans win control of Congress. Does anyone doubt that Senate Majority Leader McConnell would pursue Court expansion? His argument for doing so would be precisely the same as his argument last October for confirming Barrett: Republicans had the power to do it, and nothing in the Constitution prohibited them from doing it.
"...It cannot be a persuasive argument against Democrats' expanding the Court that Republicans will simply retaliate in kind one day: Republicans have amply demonstrated that they will break the norm against Court expansion when they see the advantage in doing so, regardless of what Democrats do now."
Brian Murtagh added: "Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.
"Why can't you have to go through a brief training course to show you can operate the thing safely? Why can't you register a particular gun just like you register your car to you? Why aren't you required to take out insurance in case something goes wrong and you're in an accident or whatever? You accidentally shoot somebody?
"[I]f you have the privilege of carrying a lethal weapon around with you, then if you misuse it, if you use it while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, if you use it in the commission of crime, it should be taken away from you."
If your Representatives, Senators, Governor, and State legislators don't pass these reforms, vote them out of power in favor of someone who will. America's standard of living must lead the world, and our nation must stay competitive.
Note that signing petitions is fine, but petitions by themselves don't accomplish much. The way to make a difference is to lobby Congress and vote. If you're already registered to vote, double-check your registration. If you're not, register. Urge your family and friends to register, even if they disagree with you. On election day: vote.
Legacy Links: [But Today,
I Confess: Political Satire in Verse] | [Obamawatch] | [The Legacy of George W. Bush]