Supreme Court

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