I’ll provide the tl:dr upfront: without SCOTUS “reform”, everything else we do to regain a semblance of a true democracy, root out corruption and fix our clearly broken political system will be at best fragile and at worst for naught.

And by reform, I mean break up the current corrupt, partisan SCOTUS and put rules/laws in place to do our best to ensure we never get to this point again.

Not sold on the partisan “tip the scales” nature of this SCOTUS? Let’s take a walk down memory lane:

  • In 1870, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. It’s full text reads:

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

  • In 1965, the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) was passed by Congress. This civil rights legislation was designed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment and end discriminatory voting practices—especially in the South—that had long barred African Americans from voting. It outlawed literacy tests, poll taxes, and other barriers, and required certain jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws.

  • In 2006, in Purcell vs. Gonzalez, SCOTUS came up with the Purcell Principle. Per Democracy Docket, “…the Supreme Court, in deciding Purcell v. Gonzalez, reinstated a previously blocked citizenship law in Arizona just two and a half weeks before Election Day. In justifying its decision, the Court considered the timing of upcoming elections and determined that blocking the law weeks before Election Day caused confusion for both voters and election administrators. Importantly, in its ruling, the Court did not draw a line in the sand for what it defines as too close to an election to alter voting rules.” Marc Elias at Democracy Docket goes on to make some important points about Purcell:

    • It lacks clear standards, consistent application, and constitutional foundation.

    • It is a doctrine with no grounding in law or the Constitution

    • conservatives on the Supreme Court have wielded all too often to advantage white voters and Republicans at the expense of Black voters and Democrats

    • In its original form, it was aimed at preventing court orders that "result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls." But it rapidly expanded into something far broader: a tool to block any court order that might protect voting rights near an election, while allowing anti-voting measures to proceed unchallenged.

    Remember this - the Purcell Principle is key to future SCOTUS rulings.

  • Also in 2006, the VRA was reauthorized after vigorous debate by votes of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House (all the negative House votes were by southern Republicans).

  • In 2013, in a 5-4 decision in Shelby County vs. Holder, SCOTUS essentially invalidated Section 5 of the VRA. This section addressed historical discrimination by requiring “preclearance” with the Department of Justice to make any change to voting laws to ensure the change did not deny or abridge the right to vote based on race of language minority status. Justice Roberts had previously proclaimed “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating based on race.” IT’s that easy. Poof.

Now let’s fast forward a bit to a by-no-means-complete sampling of court decisions. Some changes were denied, some were approved, but ALL of them were essentially anti-voting and pro-discriminatory.

  • In 2021 in Georgia, a U. S. District Court denied a request to pause an anti-voting measure 2 ½ months before an election

  • In 2022 in Arkansas, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved a pause of a pro-voting ruling 1 ½ months before the election

  • In 2022 in Georgia, a U. S. District Court approved a pause to new Georgia maps 3 months before the primary election

  • In 2022, in Florida, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved a pause to a lower court’s order 5 month’s before the election that Florida law changes were subject to Section 5 preclearance

  • In 2022 in Alabama, SCOTUS denied a lower court’s disapproval of a new congressional map. The lower court acted 4 months before primary elections

  • In 2022 in North Carolina, SCOTUS denied a request for new fairer congressional maps which were proposed 3 months before primary elections

  • 2 weeks ago, SCOTUS denied Louisiana’s congressional maps and ordered them changed for the 2026 election even though primary voting was already underway

  • While this was at the state level, 4 days ago the Virginia Supreme Court denied new congressional districts that voters had voted for - they simply invalidated the voters choice. The vote was 4-3 and all justices voting to deny the voters were Republicans.

Racism is dead my a**.

Finally, while the Purcell Principal applied to changing voting laws, its shadow hung over Presidential Appointments as well.

  • On March 16, 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill Antonin Scalia’s SCOTUS seat. This was roughly 8 months before the next Presidential election. Senate Majority Leader McConnell vowed not to hold a vote in the Senate saying it too close to a Presidential election and the “people should have a voice”.

  • On September 26, 2020, President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s SCOTUS seat. This was roughly 12 months before the next Presidential election. On October 26, 2016, only 9 days before the election, the Senate voted to confirm Barrett (the 35 days from nomination to confirmation was the shortest period for confirming a SCOTUS justice in the history of the U.S.).

Without blunting the power of the current partisan hack SCOTUS, and instituting permanent reforms, we are screwed.

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

Off topic but this is also a five alarm fire!

"The Republican administration also is imposing a six-month freeze on some new Medicare enrollments and warning states to investigate Medicaid fraud or risk losing funding, officials said.

JEEEZUS MAKE IT STOP

"Nationwide freeze on some new Medicare provider enrollments

Oz's agency also announced a nationwide six-month moratorium on all new Medicare enrollments by providers of hospice and home care."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-administration-freezes-medicare-enrollments-144152608.html

Avatar

Sepideh M6 months ago

The Republican Party is depriving YOU of your Medicare benefits. Make all the ads.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

I'ma hafta go touch, nah, smoke some serious grass right now or I might 'splode. Courts & legal stuff is one of my favorite topics as y'all prolly surmised by my prolific commenting, but when they tapdance on the third rail it's over for me until I can calm the fuck down! Good thing we're having quesadillas tonight cuz I'm gonna be hongry.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

A prelude (they just pull numbers out of their asses and steamroll ahead regardless):

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-medicaid-fraud-dr-oz-trump-342285a3c5d5b71f36ce3f3c77ec72c5

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

"Dems' relief in South Carolina yesterday was just very temporary: the GOP governor has reportedly decided to call a special legislative session to eliminate Jim Clyburn's majority-Black seat and have an all-GOP delegation."

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:7vj2towokzui3hgna5u5u46f/post/3mlr24aval22h

Avatar

C P6 months ago

100%. Have said it for years: the Supreme Court is literally more dangerous than Donald Trump. At least Trump'll die someday. The Supreme Court is already pretty well positioned to ensure its survival as an ever-reactionary organ in perpetuity. It needs to be smashed.

Avatar

John S.6 months ago

That’s why court packing isn’t necessarily the answer. Making sure the court is de-politicized by enforcing term limits and ethics rules is the only thing that prevents it from becoming a multi-generational nightmare.

Avatar

C P6 months ago

Honestly... like I said a few days ago, my biggest problem with the court, conceptually, is that it's a gaggle of politicians left in place by the outgoing administration and a few of its predecessors to effectively give them veto power over anything their successor does. No matter the fact that their successors may very well have been elected because they were making a shit-show of things and badly needed to be thrown out.

From that point of view, even term limits aren't necessarily the answer, because that problem remains.

I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is. Only that it can't go on as it is. A 6-3 Trumpian majority on the Supreme Court in this day and age is an existential threat that needs to be burned down and the earth salted.

Avatar

Joe is Wypoxic6 months ago

All of it. Limits, increasing size, enforceable ethics laws, mandating Senate hearings within a certain period of time for a nomination, whatever else makes sense.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

'Jurisdiction Stripping" Daily Beans Podcast features Elie Mystal

https://bsky.app/profile/dailybeanspod.com/post/3mlqxr6ovyc2j

Avatar

mister mixAuthor6 months ago

There seems to be some movement in Democratic Party rhetoric to consider some SC reform. But as we saw in VA, there's very little planning for the second, third and fourth move after the first one. If we know one thing, it's that Republicans will do everything they can to preserve their court. This will include every dirty trick in the book. So what happens if our first gambit fails? This is the follow up to every question about SC reform.

Avatar

Marmot Pimpernel 6 months ago

I don’t know what he has in mind, but Josh Marshall wrote about VA yesterday, saying he didn’t think retroactive retirements were a good answer. Instead, he left it vague, saying there are a large number of approaches you can take when you have the governorship and legislature.

Avatar

mister mixAuthor6 months ago

I saw someone on BlueSky say that the VA legislature can just do what the legislatures in the South did -- since the VRA is no longer in force, they can re-district their VRA districts. It might just so happen that they get more Democrats rather than less, but the SC has definitely said that it's possible.

Avatar

Joe is Wypoxic6 months ago

Either we play legal but norm-breaking hardball or we lose. Ithink that much is pretty clear...

Avatar

r po6 months ago

What does the term "legal" mean when it is the fully corrupted SCOTUS that is determining what is legal? There's a circularity here that is deeply worrying me when I think of centrist elite Ds who are currently running the show.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago(edited)

Doubling down seems to work for the other side. Frequently.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

A great thread by someone who really has their number. Pun intended.

https://bsky.app/profile/whitehouse.senate.gov/post/3mlmb74q4lk2v

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

My best John Lennon voice: Number Nine, Number Nine, Number 9

"While they were at it, the fossil-fuel billionaires packed and captured the Supreme Court, so that its every regulatory decision helps the polluters and their “free-to-pollute” business model. Look no further than the leaked Clean Power Plan memos ONLY considering polluter costs."

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

I wonder if the real Justices now sitting would be willing to retire with dignity if we simply throw this entire Supremacists Court out on their asses and start over with real oversight, regulation, and standards.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

I don't know why this fucking guy also came to mind right now, but I hope he's in unbearable agony for eternity if such a thing exists.

https://futuredude.substack.com/p/roy-cohn-the-architect-behind-trumps

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

Correction: it's extremely obvs why if you read that short-ish piece.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

"I wish I didn’t know as much about the end of Reconstruction as I do.

If you understood what is being unleashed now, how it will touch every aspect of our civic life, and how difficult it will be to undo it, you wouldn’t be able to think about anything else."

https://bsky.app/profile/trevondlogan.bsky.social/post/3mlmrsw6ets23

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

We now have a new "Payback Squad" at the Dept. of Just Us

https://digbysblog.net/2026/05/13/the-payback-squad/

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

As far as I'm concerned, any/all rulings from this court are illegitimate and, as Kevin Kruse said, "Fuck You vs. Make Me."

I used to revere the Rule of Law but then Bush Cheney, et al. resulted in my filing formal grievance with the State Bar of Texas via a PA law office fax machine. I framed their lame response.

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago(edited)

(That Kruse quote was made in reference to a recent OLC Memo stating that the feds are entitled to possess every state's voter rolls.)

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

"The Bush administration opened several lines of attack against the rule of law and the integrity of an independent Justice Department. The scandals are so famous that they've been reduced to shorthand: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, NSA, Attorneygate."

Ari Melber

Avatar

C P6 months ago

Bush v. Gore was the canary in the coal mine as far as I'm concerned.

Oddly enough, it's not even the reasoning they used to award the election that was the worst part of it. It was their attempt to lock the decision away in its own little pocket universe by saying "this should never be used as precedent." That was them screaming, as loud as they could, "if this ever occurs again but the facts of the case are reversed, we do not want anyone ruling the same way. The basis of our ruling is that we want a Republican president, period."

Avatar

TBone Dinosaur6 months ago

Yep!

Avatar

Busted Knee6 months ago

Sandra Day O'Connor flat out admitted that she wanted to be replaced by a Republican.