House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries went to the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Atlanta and, asked about the Supreme Court, dispensed with the usual reverence. “In my view, dramatic Supreme Court reform is necessary,” Jeffries said when asked about the subject. “…There’s a variety of different options that are on the table. And I think that we can’t foreclose any single one of them.”
Is it actually possible that *if* Democrats retake Congress this fall everything is on the menu? Well, I won’t hold my breath, but Jeffries is talking a good game.
Jeffries was careful to note that he’d defer to House Judiciary Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), to work out which reform actually gets pursued. But he was not careful (or interested in being careful) about why reform is necessary in the first place. “The conservative right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become, you know, basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party,” he said, before landing the finishing blow, “they don’t have the credibility.”
How To Avoid Hallucinations: A Legal Research AI That Works Like A Junior Lawyer
Can we make legal research AI stop hallucinating? The answer is yes – and it’s how attorneys approach legal research with their associates.
The Court’s credibility problem has been brewing for a minute. The share of registered voters with “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of faith in the institution has cratered to a combined 22 percent — a number that would embarrass a chronic disease, and one that holds up across party lines, meaning this is not partisan noise from the losing side. Donald Trump, despite his lopsided win rate at the High Court, still rants about SCOTUS on the regular (and then turned around and demanded Jeffries apologize for calling it illegitimate, riddle me that one, Batman).
As for what “dramatic reform” actually means, well — there are options. The two leading answers have been fighting it out on this very site for years. My colleague Joe Patrice has argued, repeatedly, that term limits are the least dangerous and most necessary reform on the menu, on the theory that life tenure was thought to be a shield against politics but has turned into the opposite. Our former colleague Elie Mystal has repeatedly made the case for the nuclear option — just expand the Court, because adding justices is the only reform that changes the math immediately. What was a Netroots Nation punchline a decade ago is now the mainstream option. Life tenure comes at you fast.
But none of this happens unless the Dems show out in the midterms, and even then it runs straight into a Senate filibuster that Jeffries, as a House member, doesn’t get a vote on. Reform talk is cheap; reform is not.
Earlier: The Supreme Court’s Sinking Popularity
A Majority Of Americans Support Expanding The Supreme Court
Donald Trump Wants Everyone (But Him) To Respect The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
Supreme Court Term Limits Are The Least Dangerous, Most Necessary Reform On The Menu
Supreme Court Term Limits Went From Punchline To Platform For Progressives
Court Packing Is The Way To Save The Court From The U.S. Senate
What You Didn’t Learn In Law School
How do you keep up with the competition? Share your perspective in this brief survey to help us benchmark your lifelong training in professional skills. As a thank you, qualified respondents receive a chance to win a $250 gift card.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1