Post

@mostlybree.kitrocha.com

I will say that I think caring about point #1 requires a reverence for the Supreme Court I do not have. I simply do not think a body that small should have that much concentrated power. One person's cancer diagnosis should not decide the human rights of an entire generation. 81 justices is fine.

Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social

Calls for expanding #SCOTUS are entirely (and increasingly) understandable. But as today's "One First" explains, there are at least four difficult questions that those who support expansion should have to answer—especially as compared to other possible reforms: www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-257-...

15/10/26, 3:32 pm18 reposts111 likes

Susanne Allen

@evensong.bsky.social

We somehow need repercussions for what got us here. The refusal to consider Merrick Garland… nothing like that should happen again.

tmoney2007.bsky.social

@tmoney2007.bsky.social

Not enough people have grappled with the fact that SCOTUS has been bad in most ways for most of its history. This one differs in method, not degree of shittiness. Eras like the Warren Court are the exception, not the rule.

Katherine Derbyshire

@kderbyshire.bsky.social

The bigger issue I see is that expanding the court does not prevent McConnell-esque shenanigans around when seats are (or are not) filled.

Ghostly Bree

@mostlybree.kitrocha.com

I think the system is irrevocably broken and I don't know what should replace it but right now I'd like every one of those fuckers to have deeply diluted power. However we get there is good for me.

Ghostly Bree

@mostlybree.kitrocha.com

And maybe it requires having lost your bodily autonomy because of one person's cancer diagnosis to think the total destruction of the court is worth it. But I did. And I do. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I think it's easier for folks who still have the same rights they were born with to take a more lofty view.

pj-evans.bsky.social

@pj-evans.bsky.social

20 years, or until age 75, whichever comes first.