• PKMKII [none/use name]
    ·
    9 months ago

    The article does mention court packing. The article is mostly about a lecture series designed with the hope to spark an activist movement. There’s a decent history on the court’s power, but the actual goals mentioned are developing a counter narrative to conservative originalism, and these proposed reforms:

    Popular overrides of court decisions by referendum, as proposed by Theodore Roosevelt in his 1912 third-party presidential campaign.

    "Jurisdiction stripping," meaning laws that limit the court's jurisdiction over certain kinds of statutes.

    A supermajority requirement, meaning a bare majority of five justices could not invalidate laws passed by Congress, as proposed by progressive Sen. William Borah in 1923.

    Congressional authority to override any Supreme Court decision by a two-thirds vote, as proposed by Sen. Robert La Follette Sr. in his 1924 third-party presidential campaign.

    Prohibiting federal court injunctions in labor disputes, as mandated by the 1932 Norris–La Guardia Act.

    You’re right though, outside of a flippant description of Biden’s Supreme Court commission as do-nothing, the elephant in the room of overcoming the party of “nothing will fundamentally change” is not addressed.

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
      ·
      9 months ago

      Thanks. I was still curious about what the article said.

      “nothing will fundamentally change”

      Biden and the dems keep lying about restoring Row in a performative pantomime and nearly all dem pundits play along. They all know a Roe law is already DOA if the dems don't pack the court first because the GOP justices will find it unconstitutional. It's so weird.