Without control of the White House, there is of course only so much Democrats can do with their newfound power. And in the context of the myriad horrors of the first half of President Donald Trump’s second term, talking about what the party “should” do next is roughly analogous to deciding which out-of-control forest fire to fight first: There is not enough water, there are lots of worthy candidates, and all of them are getting worse.
One thing must be true, though: Whatever issues Democratic lawmakers choose to focus on—and, as the 2028 ideas primary gets underway, whatever ambitious ideas Democratic presidential hopefuls choose to support—the party must also have a plan for taking on the Supreme Court, which remains an existential threat to anything Democrats might hope to accomplish. Even if the party is fortunate enough to win a trifecta—the House, the Senate, and the White House—in 2028, things like a Green New Deal and Medicare for All and a new Voting Rights Act do not stand a chance before this six-justice conservative supermajority. Regrettably, what I wrote in 2020 is just as true today: If Congress passes any one of these proposals into law, the only real question is which justice ends up writing the opinion that kills it.
While I agree in principle with expanding the court and breaking its power, I don’t think the time is right for seriously proposing it.
The midterms were more a rejection of Trump than an endorsement of a Democratic agenda. The upset, red-state victories were about ending the war and lowering gas prices, not about fundamentally transforming the balance of power in the state. The senators in those states will not support those measures (if they want to have a chance at reelection), so even with a trifecta it’s unlikely to go through. In the meantime, the Democrats will appear power-hungry and the right will have plenty of material to fear-monger, and there’s also legitimate concerns about the right taking power and doing the same thing.
The best way to approach major judicial reform would be to put it directly in the hands of the people, through something like a national referendum. There isn’t really a process for national level referendums here in the States, but even some kind of non-binding resolution could better assess the popular will and provide a clearer mandate. Currently, what we have are polls, which show a roughly even split for and against, with clearer support for term limits. So enact term limits, say you don’t think it goes far enough, but promise that you won’t go further without a clear mandate from the people.