Court expansion - yea or nay?

[Fiendish Thingy]

Without expanding the court, and killing the filibuster to do so, there can be no restoration of lost rights, and no repairing the damage of the Trump era. Support for expansion and killing the filibuster must be the litmus test for all Dem primary candidates moving forward, especially those candidates for senate.

While it doesn’t have to be the centrepiece of their campaigns, Court expansion must be the first order of business once Dems regain the trifecta in 2029.

Whatever is on your legislative wish list, none of it is possible without neutralizing the MAGA majority on the court first.

Agree or disagree?

(If you’re so inclined, please rec this poll for maximum visibility and participation)

70 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Abso-fucking-lutely! The filibuster must die and the court must be expanded!
	68 (97%)
	NO - we must use traditional legislative methods to resolve our political differences with republicans
	1 (1%)
	I'm not sure - I am concerned that, when they regain power, republicans will just retaliate by adding even more seats to the court, and Ram through awful laws without the filibuster
	1 (1%)
	4 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Good riddance

But it doesn’t change the question the poll asks.

[MichMan]

4. False

[Bluetus]

3. This misses the point

Last edited Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Whether we are talking 9 unelected lawyers put in a position of dictating every feature of American life for as long as they live, or 12 or 15, it doesn't matter. It is all a terrible idea.

We should be talking about a structure that makes sense in 2026, not 1776. First, the court should not be dominated by career lawyers as if that is the only expertise that is valuable or needed. Today's society is so complicated, it is patently absurd to think that a few old lawyers truly understand the broad range of issues brought before the court.

We should be talking about a court of 50 Justices or more, divided into several panels based on expertise. For example, this could be one way to divide the expertise:
* Science, technology, environment, medicine, etc.
* Finance, commerce, worker rights, taxes, personal injury, etc.
* Constitutional rights, states rights, voting rights, etc.
* Foreign affairs, treaties, immigration, maritime law, etc.

And there would be a need for some structure to assign cases to the particular panels and to resolve overlaps between panels.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. That's still of form of expansion

The more the merrier I say. The bigger the court, the less influence and impact each individual Justice has, and the more difficult it is to form unified voting blocs.

Your idea takes it even further, limiting judicial power in a very innovative way.

And it can all be done without amending the constitution.

But the filibuster must die.

[Bluetus]

6. Absolutely. Numbers like 9, 12, even 15 are just absurd

Our society is far too complex for any 9 people to understand.

An alternative would be to return the court to its original remit, which was to be the final arbiter of application of the laws, such as they are, rather than reinterpreting laws for the times. But every bureaucratic institution tries to expand its power, so I can't see a return to the original remit.

And even if the court could somehow be limited to the application of laws, rather than legislating from teh bench, it is impossible that any 9 people would have that expertise. In fact, they are operating as proxies for much larger organizations that have big political agendas.

[LymphocyteLover]

10. would be nice but that is even less likely to happen-- but certainly push the idea to move the Overton Window

[Bluetus]

11. Exactly. We need to put bold, challening ideas forward

Not just tiny adjustments to a failing status quo.

No 9 people, especially ones that are never elected and serve for life, should ever have this kind of power (and corruption). That is insanity. Making it 12 corrupt, unelected, lifers doesn't solve ANYTHING.

[LymphocyteLover]

12. The people we put on won't be corrupt but the other side won't view it that way. A non-partisan solution would be good.

[Bluetus]

17. When anybody sits on the court for decades with this kind of power

corruption is very likely. We should not be saying that Democrats are immune from that. It is a foolish system that invites corruption.

[LymphocyteLover]

18. I can't argue with that

[orthoclad]

7. How many circuit districts are there?

Assign one Supreme for each circuit, by law.

First, expand.
Next, term limits.

We should have done that 4 years ago.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. There are 13 districts currently

Congress could also increase those.

Term limits would require an amendment to the constitution.

[orthoclad]

15. That's why I say expand first.

The Reich Wing is very good at twisting laws and words to get their way, witness Roe etc. I bet some Harvard lawyer could come up with a way to effectively shorten the terms.

[RoseTrellis]

20. R probably agree

I expect we may see the repukes expand the court while they can. I’m sure they’ll use these same arguments and beat us to the punch.

[orthoclad]

21. We had the opportunity and bungled it

[WarGamer]

8. I believe in the "Other Shoe Intellectual Honesty Test"

If there were 6 progressive leaning Justices... and the GOP was pushing for expansion, would you be in favor of expansion?

If the answer is no... then it's just a partisan proposal compensating for lost elections.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. You appear to have forgotten about McConnel's obstruction of Obama's nominees

Partisan or not, court expansion is the only remedy available to reverse the damage of the Trump era.

We cannot let the Paradox of Tolerance facilitate our descent into Facism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[Bluetus]

16. The whole concept is absurd. We should be pushing for fundamental reforms.

Last edited Tue Jun 30, 2026, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)

If we look at comparable democracies, nearly all have a mandatory retirement age of 65 or 70 (Canada is 75). By the 65 age standard, the majority of our court would ALREADY be retired.

India has up to 38 justices, and new justices are recommended by the court itself, not by politicians.

The UK has a court of 9, but they are appointed by an independent commission, and they hear cases in rotating panels of 5.

The median term of service for an SC Justice (globally) is under 8 years. In the US, it is almost 30 years. That invites corruption, dementia, and "get off my lawn" syndrome.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/life-tenure-us-supreme-court-justices-global-oddity-clear-costs

[EnergizedLib]

9. If we want to save America, we must

[GoodRaisin]

19. Expand or die.

[MerryBlooms]

22. Neither will happen in my lifetime

I agree, but what I hear people talking about?
Their foodstamps got cut from $290 to $60. Yep, apparently, now they can live on $60 a month for food.
Folks I know aren't talking about the supreme court, they are talking about the loss of buying groceries. Plus, got kicked off healcare.
I know it's a deeper dive that you're going into, but these folks don't.
It's getting really rough out here for people who have no access to food banks. Which also had funds cut.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. The widespread suffering you describe is why Dems are going to win the midterms

And regain the trifecta in 2028.

From there, they can expand the court, and govern fearlessly and unhesitatingly, or face rejection at the ballot box in the 2030 election from all those who continue to suffer.