Alternet
- When rationalizing its alarming injection
of politics into legal decision, conservatives on the John Roberts Supreme
Court are dumping years of legal analysis and precedent in favor of historical
arguments. In essence, legal theory appears to be taking back seat to what law
in America used to look like, says Florida International University philosophy
Associate Professor Eric Scarffe.
They’re using history, said
Scarffe, to do what judicial philosophy long has not: remove judgment from
judging.
“Rather than promoting judicial
restraint, … key cases reveal how the ‘history and tradition test’ has been
weaponized to enable one of the most radical revisions to this nation’s
constitutional order since the New Deal,” argued Scarffe. “It has been used not
only to overturn previous decisions and precedent, but also to fundamentally
shift the way the Court engages in judicial review.”
Congressional
Insider - Kamala Harris
publicly urged Democrats to “revisit” expanding the Supreme Court to 13
justices and to rethink the Electoral College and statehood for Washington,
D.C., and Puerto Rico, escalating a live fight over the rules of American
democracy.
Harris said the Supreme Court
should consider expanding to 13 justices. She called for revisiting the
Electoral College and granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Republican
leaders denounced the ideas as partisan power grabs.
Video clips show Harris urging
supporters to brainstorm reforms beyond past limits. She listed court
expansion, stronger rules for Supreme Court ethics and testimony, Electoral
College changes, multi-member districts, and new states as options to weigh. Her
message invited debate rather than outlining a detailed bill, but it marked a
clear endorsement of pushing structural reforms when Democrats next have power
to act. The broad menu signals a larger fight over how the system should work
in coming years.
Supporters frame court expansion
and related steps as repairs to a system they say has lost balance. They argue
a bigger court could reduce outsized power of single seats and reflect a
growing nation. They also claim an updated Electoral College or national
popular vote would better match voter will. Statehood backers say Washington,
D.C., and Puerto Rico deserve full representation. These points echo Democratic
reform talk that has moved from fringe idea to mainstream discussion in recent
years