"...The VRA was eliminated not because it was no longer necessary, but because it had succeeded in challenging power structures. A court that will do this will eliminate other programs designed to make America more democratic and more fair.
"The political scientist Jon Ladd responded to the decision by suggesting we should adjust our expectation that any pro-democracy agendas would be deemed constitutional. If Democrats were able to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, or a national gerrymandering ban, would the Supreme Court allow such policies? Would the Court find a way to block proportional representation? Would they allow the extension of statehood to DC or Puerto Rico?
"One of the great cautionary tales of American politics is that Roosevelt’s effort at court packing, which is seen as a dangerous overreach. But today, the conditions are different. 'The Supreme Court itself has shown itself to be the enemy of democracy' according to legal scholar Rick Hasen.
"Under these conditions, court reform becomes a logical solution. (For a contrary view Steve Vladeck argues that Congress can still make the Supreme Court accountable). It would require more Democrats and more of the general public to buy into the notion that defending democracy requires radical action.
"But
when the opponents of democracy are radical, the defense has to be
clear-eyed. We look at countries like Brazil and South Korea, where
leaders have been imprisoned for anti-democratic actions, or Hungary,
where there is a purge of Orbanists from government. They recognize the
urgency of their moment. Do we?..." -- Don Moynihan, in his "Can We Still Govern?" Substack, on the recent Callais decision and the importance of recognizing the reactionary forces we face and confronting them with the sense of urgency that's required.
A republic - if we can keep it.
ReplyDeleteA republic---if we can get it back.
Delete