In a bid to regain control and shift the balance in their favor, some Democrats are exploring an unconventional strategy. According to veteran strategist James Carville, if they win majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives in the 2028 elections, Democrats may seek to expand the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices.
Carville believes that expanding the court would be a necessary step to restore faith in the institution among the American public. He argues that the current nine-justice bench has been rated the lowest in history and that it's not written anywhere in the Constitution that one needs exactly nine justices. By increasing the number of justices, Carville thinks Democrats can achieve some balance on the court.
However, McEnany pointed out that expanding the Supreme Court would likely require significant changes to current laws and practices, such as making Puerto Rico a state or ending the filibuster. When asked if he'd be willing to take those steps, Carville said yes, stating that in times of national emergencies, lawmakers often carve out exceptions for critical issues.
Carville's comments have sparked debate about the role of politics in shaping the Supreme Court and whether Democrats should prioritize expanding the court or focus on other strategies.
Carville believes that expanding the court would be a necessary step to restore faith in the institution among the American public. He argues that the current nine-justice bench has been rated the lowest in history and that it's not written anywhere in the Constitution that one needs exactly nine justices. By increasing the number of justices, Carville thinks Democrats can achieve some balance on the court.
However, McEnany pointed out that expanding the Supreme Court would likely require significant changes to current laws and practices, such as making Puerto Rico a state or ending the filibuster. When asked if he'd be willing to take those steps, Carville said yes, stating that in times of national emergencies, lawmakers often carve out exceptions for critical issues.
Carville's comments have sparked debate about the role of politics in shaping the Supreme Court and whether Democrats should prioritize expanding the court or focus on other strategies.
I gotta say, if you ask me, I think this is a pretty cool idea 
! Expanding the Supreme Court could be a game changer for democracy, you know? It's like a breath of fresh air after years of polarization 
. And let's be real, the current state of the court is kinda laughable 
. Having nine justices doesn't necessarily mean balance and fairness - in fact, it can lead to gridlock and partisan bickering 
.
and suggesting that expanding the court could actually restore faith in the institution among Americans. It's not just about politics; it's about creating a more representative and effective system of governance 
. Of course, there are challenges to overcome 
, but I think this could be a bold step towards a more progressive and inclusive future 
. Who knows, maybe we'll see some amazing changes and innovations come out of this! 
. i'm not sure about adding more justices, but at least they could try to address some of the issues that are making america unhappy right now, like healthcare and education.
is it really that hard to find common ground? anyway, if i were a dem, id rather focus on passing laws that actually help people than messing around with the supreme court. just saying 
. I'm worried about the precedent it sets and how that would affect the balance of power. And what about Puerto Rico becoming a state? That's just a whole nother can of worms 
. I think Carville's got some valid points, but we need to be careful not to rush into things. Maybe instead of expanding the court, they should focus on getting more Americans involved in the voting process and educating themselves about the issues... that'd be a game-changer for me 
. Adding four more might just make things worse? What's next, expanding Congress too and making our politicians even richer 
? And what about all those laws and practices that'd need to change? It sounds like a huge mess 
. It's just gonna mess everything up! And what's with the 'balance' argument? Can't they see that's just code for 'I'm gonna pack it with my friends and ignore everyone else's opinions'? 
. I swear, if they want to change the law, they should just make a new one instead of messing around with all this old stuff 
.
No thanks. I'd rather see some real structural changes, not just a bunch of arbitrary power grabs 
. If Democrats wanna change laws, they need to work with Republicans too. I'm all for them finding common ground, but just expanding the court without talking to anyone else? That sounds like a recipe for disaster 
. What do you guys think? Should they focus on other strategies or try to fix the court first? 