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)

113 votes, 5 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Abso-fucking-lutely! The filibuster must die and the court must be expanded!
	103 (91%)
	NO - we must use traditional legislative methods to resolve our political differences with republicans
	2 (2%)
	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
	8 (7%)
	5 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.

[wnylib]

24. Why kill the filibuster? I favor expansion, but

I am wary of eliminating the filibuster. Elimination of it favors us when we are in power, but hurts us when we are not.

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. The filibuster is an archaic, Jim Crow era tool of obstruction and obfuscation

The filibuster prevents an up or down floor vote, allowing a bill to die without any senator having to go on record opposing or supporting it. It is a tool to avoid accountability to the voters, substituting a shrug for courage.

Court expansion will never pass with the filibuster intact, nor would any legislation restoring lost rights or repairing the damage of the Trump era.

Think about your wish list of bills you’d like to see passed.

Reproductive rights? Blocked by the filibuster

Voting rights? Blocked by the filibuster

Campaign finance reform? Blocked by the filibuster

Anything that might be passed by reconciliation (none of the above issues qualify) could be overturned by the Roberts court unless the MAGA majority is neutralized via expansion.

Dems must never again govern out of fear of what republicans might do if they regained power.

Kill the filibuster, ram through dozens of progressive bills that benefit all Americans other than billionaires, and Dems will retain the trifecta for a generation or more (see: FDR and the New Deal).

If republicans ever regain the trifecta and try to undo all the progress made under democrats, then the record will be there to hold them accountable at the ballot box, rather than the smoke and mirrors of gridlock by filibuster.

[wnylib]

34. You describe the current use of the filibuster, which

is fairly recent, within recent decades and instituted by Rs in a change of rules.

I was thinking about its original use, when a Senator had ro actually take to the floor and drone on and on.

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. In either form, it is a tool of obstruction.

I’m fine with a new senate rule limiting debate to, say, 100 hours, then a floor vote must occur. (And no funny business about how the hours are counted- two weeks after a bill leaves committee, there must be a floor vote)

[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

[wnylib]

27. I agree that we need people who are knowledgeable

In various areas, like modern technology, because issues of privacy and freedom from surveillance are important in guaranteeing our rights as listed in the Bill of Rights.

But, a really large court composed of several committes in areas of expertise could usurp some of the powers of Congress. We want to eliminate legislating from the bench.

The primary purpose of the court is to interpret Constitutional law. That requires the legal expertise of lawyers, an understanding of history and context of meaning, and how they still apply to us today. So I do not discount the value of lawyers on the courts.

If your idea of a huge court were implemented, I think the judges would need to be lawyers with legal knowledge and experience in the areas of expertise that you listed. Example of tech knowledge without legal background would be Elon Musk. He lacks respect for law and has a willingness to bend or ignore laws that would not favor his businesses. Is he a US citizen? Thar would also be a factor, of course. But other techies, like in Silicon Valley, would also be questionable people to rule on judicial decisions.

I could only see your idea working if all the judges had law licenses and legal experience, in addition to knowledge of their specific area of expertise that you suggested. They would need to consult with Constitutional law experts in making decisions.

We would also need a code of ethics with teeth in it to deal with the potential for corruption like favoring of corporations over human rights.

I think that your idea has possibilities, but would need to be tweaked.

[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

[BannonsLiver]

48. What a ludicrous comment.

Just another play on the moldy “both sides” chestnut from someone who apparently believes insane people like Kavanaugh and Alito are the same as any one of the 3 justices that actually have a moral compass.

What a stunning surprise that actual Democrats on a Democratic forum would prefer more justices that aren’t actively trashing the constitution for their orange pedo master. Stunning! The nerve!

[WarGamer]

56. lol...

[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.

[MineralMan]

25. Not While There Is a Republican President and Senate Majority!

For pity's sake! Think! That would be a disaster.

Perish the thought!

[RoeVWade]

26. A Democrat in the Presidency can fire almost every Trump appointment and fire off a thousand new executive orders.

I suppose that will help. Well, I could be supposing wrong.

[Fiendish Thingy]

30. A purge will be necessary in 2029

But then, so will new legislation preventing future purges, once the filibuster is killed and the court is expanded.

[no_hypocrisy]

28. Plan C:

Impeach Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh.

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. You think Dems will ever get 67 seats in the senate?

That’s a gain of 20 seats over what they have now.

That’s what it would take to remove those justices.

Court expansion only requires electing a simple majority of Dems in each chamber with the courage to kill the filibuster and expand the court.

[tinrobot]

31. Expansion is a band-aid. Term limits are the real solution.

We could expand to 13, but it won't resolve the structural problems with lifetime appointments.

We need to term limit justices so we stop appointing 30/40 year olds to lifetime terms.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. Term limits requires an amendment to the constitution

I think there may a wave of proposed amendments to deal with the wreckage of the post-Trump era, including limits to Pardon power and term limits for SCOTUS, but the country can’t wait until those get ratified.

Expansion must be job #1 in 2029, otherwise there can be no restoration of lost rights, and no repairing of the damage Trump has wrought.

[tinrobot]

45. Never said it would be easy, but limits are the best solution.

And expansion will always be a short-term fix.

Expanding to 13 could get a 7-6 majority in 2029. But by 2039, it could easily revert back.

[the_liberal_grandpa]

35. Expanding the court is mandatory!

No donations to any presidential candidate who does not promise to expand the court if elected.

Without this a Democratic administration is doomed.

FDR had the same problem and the serious threat of expanding the court got the MAGA's of his day to back off.

[Boo1]

52. Doomed how?

Elect a Democratic majority this fall and President in '28 and you lock in replacing Alito and Thomas.

[PCB66]

37. I never get excited about Supreme Court decisions

In my long Boomer life I have agreed (or liked) some decisions and I have disagreed or disliked other decisions.

The old 'win some/lose some'.

The indisputable fact is that when political leaders don't like a decision they find some way to get around it.

The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism. It is up to the political leaders to enforce and as we have seen too many times at the end of the day they do pretty much what they want to do, regardless of the law.

Maybe I am just getting cynical in my old age.

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. Maybe you're getting cynical

Or maybe you’re speaking from a position of privilege?

Or maybe it’s both.

I think the people directly affected by Dobbs, revocation of their TPS, disenfranchisement, racial profiling, and other violations of their rights would take offense at your “win some, lose some” attitude.

[PCB66]

50. I'm talking about 60 years

of ups and downs with court decisions.

Some of them I agreed with and some I didn't.

In the long run political leaders pretty much do what they want to do or can get away with, regardless of any court decision.

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. Yup, that's cynicism

Sorry to hear you have surrendered to defeatism.

[bob4460]

39. It is not going to happen

Because it will require 67 senate votes and we are not going to get that many seats.

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. Only a simple majority is required

If enough courageous Dems are elected who will kill the filibuster.

If they fail to do so in 2029, it will be the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party.

[Initech]

41. We need term limits.

We can't let scumbag organizations like the Heritage Foundation get lifetime appointments. That is absolutely insane.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. Term limits requires an amendment to the constitution

Expansion does not.

[Initech]

43. We need term limits and we need to ban outside influence from groups like the Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation has really crossed some lines in this administration that should not have been crossed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

46. Expansion must come first

I’m sure there will be a push for new amendments, including SCOTUS term limits, but we can’t afford to wait to see if they get ratified.

The MAGA majority must be neutralized ASAP in 2029 so that lost rights can be restored and the damage from the Trump era can begin to be repaired.

[Initech]

49. Of course the first step *HAS* to be undoing the MAGA majority.

And we've got to take back not just SCOTUS, but the lower courts from these scumbags as well.

[Boo1]

44. Idk

Do you think Republicans should kill the filibuster and expand the court today? They could.

And before you respond with " we cant be afraid of what will happen." Thats the entire basis of human survival, fear of what doing something will result in. Its why we follow laws, wash our hands, and dont drink strange liquids.

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. If republicans expanded the court now, we would only have to wait 2 years for our chance to do the same

The larger the court grows, the less influence any single Justice has, and the more difficult it is to form predictable reliable voting blocs.

We are on the verge of a lawless society, and a great number are being force Fed strange liquids in the form of lost rights.

And before you respond with " we cant be afraid of what will happen." Thats the entire basis of human survival,

No it is not- weighing the both potential risks and benefits of any particular action is the basis of not only the survival, but the evolution of the human species. And it is clear to anyone with critical thinking skills, after almost 20 years of the Roberts court, that the benefits of expansion far outweigh the risks.

People, especially politicians, who only act out of fear of what bad thing might happen are described with one easy to understand word:

Cowards.

As we have seen in several elections just this week, the voters, especially Democratic voters, are fed up with electing do-nothing cowards.

If the court isn’t expanded in 2029, it will be the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party.

[Boo1]

51. The US House

has over 400 members, and I can reliably guess how all of them will vote on any given issue. I can predict how they will vote with a fairly high accuracy without even knowing what the issue is and just asking if the sitting President supports of opposes the issue.

And that's WITH elections for them to consider.

Do you really think that the SCOTUS could grow big enough to not have predictable voting blocs?


Think the court is too conservative? Elect a Democratic senate majority in the fall and a Democratic President in '28 and you can guarantee that Thomas, Alito, and likely Roberts would be replaced in the next 10 years with more liberal judges.

[Fiendish Thingy]

54. So, everyone should wait 10 years rather than 2 to have their rights restored?

And that’s maybe in 10 years, if Dems have the trifecta when any of them resigns or dies.

Or the filibuster can die, the court can be expanded and we can have a new liberal majority by summer 2029.

All of which is perfectly legal.

You’re in the minority here with your high threshold of tolerance for lost rights.

Must be nice to be someone unaffected by extremist rulings of this corrupt court.

[EnergizedLib]

55. It must be done

And done January 21, 2029 under whichever Democratic president there is.