He stole one from Obama.

He stole one from Biden.

Without those thefts, Republicans would be 4-5 on the Court instead of 6-3.

Be mad at him instead.

Last edited Sat May 2, 2026, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

and no initial erosion of the Voting Rights Act.

If Hillary Clinton had won, there would be no Neil Gorsuch, no Brett Kavanaugh, no Amy Coney Barrett, and no absolute demolition of the Voting Rights Act.

As for the rest who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kamala Harris despite what was anticipated by Project 2025 and then came to pass, the heartiest of all "FUCK YOUs" on the general principle that we have a civic and moral duty to reduce harm to the marginalized among us.

Alito and Roberts were appointed in Bush's second term. If Gore wins in 2000, it's a stretch to think we win four Presidential elections in a row.

But Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on September 18, 2020. Four months and two days before Biden. Sorta a stretch to call it a steal, but I totally get your point.

during the last year of his second term based on the argument that
"the SC nomination should be made by the winner of the next presidential election"--

but when ANOTHER opening occurred in the last few month's of Trump's first term,
that rule no longer applied, and they made a different argument
about "who controls the U.S. Senate"--- and rushed it through in the last moments
before ANOTHER presidential election, which Joe Biden WON---
(by their 2016 arguments about SC openings and presidential elections,
that should have been BIDEN'S Supreme Court seat to fill--)


I realize that YOU know this well,
but am only stating it for those who might not know or remember

McConnell was under no obligation to approve any nominee.

when we control the U.S. Senate--- regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says about it---

Right ??

I'm good with that policy. I'm still not good with
apologists for Republican hypocrisies.... whoever they may be

McConnell was wrong to not give him one.

Least we not forget, he rammed through Amy Coney Barrett 6 weeks before an election which was a180 degree spin from his position on Merrick Garland

I don't think there was any precedent to not hold hearing with most of year left in Obama's term. Not to mention, Obama was honoring split government by making a centrist pick.

However, Coney Barrett exposed the rank hypocrisy by being very quickly nominated, given a hearing and confirmed.

It boiled down to McConnell doing whatever he had the power to do.

... and the fundraising he kicked off that got businessmen first, statesmen last elected to the House and creeped into the Senate.

I’m not sure you would like that list.

And no one has been added to the court during Trump’s second term, whereas fully half of the current MAGA majority predates Trump’s first term.

Transforming the court to its current corrupt state has been a decades long project, not just the result of Trump’s ascension to the White House (although he clearly accelerated it, with help from McConnell).

Which is why I questioned the OP’s strange, inconsistent criteria for earning a hearty “FUCK YOU”.

While Trump and McConnell deserve a generous portion of the blame, the genesis of this corrupt, hyper-partisan court goes back decades.

I agree with the OP, for many reasons beyond the SC decisions issued during this administration.

To put it another way, even if the published rationale for a conclusion is not logically sound, that doesn't automatically make the stated conclusion incorrect. (and due to what I posted, I wouldn't even say the OPs stated rationale is logically unsound, but I can also see that your point somewhat weakens it).

That hearty 'FUCK YOU' to those mentioned in the OP, is deserved for SO MANY REASONS beyond the Supreme Court.

(Oh and let's not forget - there is an active push to get one or more of the oldest SC justices to retire in time for this corrupt crowd to push through yet another appointment. And there is no guarantee that we will capture the Senate in the 2026 election.)

Blaming a certain subset of 2024 voters for the current damage this SCOTUS is causing is simply inaccurate.

Pointing the finger at that subset of voters for the damage the current administration has done is only partially accurate, as a wider net must be cast to fully capture all those responsible for the debacle of the 2024 Democratic presidential campaign.

But that’s not the topic of this thread; it’s who deserves a hearty “FUCK YOU” for enabling the current MAGA majority on the court.

Frankly, I prefer to look for solutions rather than point fingers, and the only feasible solution I can see is to elect enough courageous democrats (including a president in 2028, but also critically, senators in 2026 who will still be in office in 2029) who will kill the filibuster and expand the court.

Court expansion, and killing the filibuster to do so, is the only way, short of amending the constitution, to neutralize the current MAGA majority and begin the restoration of lost rights and repairing the damage of the Trump era.

Must every OP meet yours?

All of us continue to live with the consequences of their actions a quarter of a century later.

It's pretty clear at this point that, for some, Democrats will never be good enough to actually vote for.

Call them out. Shame them. Let them know that they are among those who bear the blame.

Let them know that they need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

shouldn't make anyone here touchy!

wrong.

Thank you!

This term isn't over yet so it's possible Trump gets more appointments.

Clarence and Alito could retire, and Trump could appoint Barron and Melania to take their places, but the MAGA majority would remain 6-3.

Any new appointments to SCOTUS during Trump’s second term won’t make a bit of difference in the long run, as long as enough courageous democrats are elected so the court is expanded in 2029.

That is why court expansion, and killing the filibuster to do so, must be Democrats #1 priority moving forward. (Reminder: Dems can walk and chew gum, so while court expansion must be priority #1, protecting the rights and wellbeing of Americans is the assumed foundation for everything Dems pursue in power).

who ever is appointed can be there for 30-40 years. And if Harris were President, the majority could ultimately shift. The longer a republican is in the White House the longer it will until the majority can shift. So yes, any appointments Trump makes this term make a lot of difference in the long term. So F**K anyone who didn't vote for Harris in 24!!!

Which would be avoided if a Dem makes that appointment.

And once the court is expanded (to at least 13, preferably 15 seats) in 2029, we will be looking at a 7-6, or preferably 9-6 liberal majority, so whoever is appointed to the court in the next two years can have decades of collecting a paycheck without any meaningful power.

If a Dem had won in 2024, Clarence and Alito would have just delayed their retirement, or would have retired in the lame duck period after the election and before inauguration day.

Like I said, as long as Dems #1 priority is court expansion in 2029, then it truly doesn’t matter who Trump gets to appoint in the next two years (and if Dems retake the senate, he’s only got about 7 months to make any more appointments).

The Supreme Court is a long term issue and there is no guarantee that it can be expanded in the future. I refuse to make excuses for anyone who didn’t vote for Harris in 24, Clinton in 16, Kerry in 04 and Gore in 2000. They fucked the country.

And the only viable solution is to expand the court.

Identifying candidates who support court expansion (and killing the filibuster to do so), and then working to get them elected and is a far better use of time and resources IMO.

But all options need to be considered. Not just one that’s a longshot at best. That’s just unrealistic.

Especially compared to impeachment, which has a much higher threshold.

All it takes for expansion is a simple majority and the courage to get it done.

What other options besides impeachment do you see as more feasible than expansion?

And it will take 60 votes. That assumes democrats take the house, the Senate and the White House,
Plus it still doesn’t excuse those who refused to vote for Clinton and Harris.

On January 3, 2029, at the commencement of the new congress, the senate can change its rules, and abolish the filibuster, or create restrictions on its use (no more emailing the clerk with intent to filibuster to block legislation).

Also, at any time (if they know they have the 51 votes) a courageous senate majority leader can execute the “nuclear option”, (as Harry Reid did) and suspend the filibuster rule for a particular piece of legislation.

If it’s made a priority, and a concerted effort is made to educate the electorate, court expansion wouldn’t be the long shot you think it is.

Still waiting to hear your feasible ideas.

I was defending the op for condemning those who didn’t vote for Harris in 24. That was my point.

Expansion is the last, best and only feasible solution to neutralizing this corrupt, extremist court.

is that anyone who didn’t vote for Harris in 24 deserves to be condemned.

I prefer to seek solutions.

You have refused to identify any others, and the status quo is untenable.

to defend the op condemning those who didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. I’m not trying to move the goal posts nor pretend that I have all the answers. Forgive me. I’m just not that arrogant.

From as few as 6 justices to as many as 10.

Yes it was expanded in the 1800's from what I've read. That doesn't mean we should run on such an agenda, though I'm not opposed to the idea.

what is the mechanism for that, and why are you so sure that it will be accomplished?

(I have thoughts on both sides of whether we should or shouldn't ... those thoughts are irrelevant to the likelihood and mechanism of it happening, which is my question here)

The court has been shrunk/expanded before - from as few as 6 justices to as many as 10, all through congressional legislation.

The likelihood of expansion depends on two factors:
1) the awareness and motivation of the voters to select and elect candidates who support expansion, and
2) the courage of the elected officials to pass the legislation, especially the courage of those in the senate, who will need to kill the filibuster to pass court expansion.

To those who say we shouldn’t expand the court because the republicans will just do the same thing once they regain power, I say:

Democrats must never again govern out of fear of what republicans might do in retaliation.

After all, republicans never govern out of fear of what Democrats might do, do they?

If the court is expanded, and with the filibuster dead, Democrats ram through bill after bill restoring lost rights and repairing the damage of the Trump era, and then govern fearlessly, unhesitatingly and progressively for the benefit of all Americans (well except maybe the billionaires), it will be decades before republicans again have a chance to regain the trifecta of power, if ever.

(for Congress, house or senate), plus those who retain their seats now and in 2028, will support such legislation?

Regardless of arguments for or against, frankly at this time it seems a stretch, and more of a hope* than a strategy. That said, by the time of the 2028 elections, if TSF continues as he has ... the sentiment may be much stronger in favor of doing ANYTHING to reverse the damage.

* brings to mind the expression ... hope in one hand and shit in the other ... which one fills up faster?


Another strategy is to figure out what TSF and his cabal have on John Roberts and others on the court ... and figure out how to nullify that hold and sway them back to acting at least less dishonorably. Yup, probably just as much or more of a long shot ... but we should be trying everything.

If the voters don’t demand expansion be made the #1 priority, then we will get politics-as-usual that pleases nobody but the oligarchs.

Expansion should be raised at every Dem candidate town hall, and Indivisible/No Kings should make it a central component of their protests.

AFAIK, Janet Mills was the only openly pro-filibuster Dem candidate running for senate this cycle, and now she’s out.

Do you know of others? Angus King was staunchly pro-filibuster, but has softened his position, especially around reproductive rights.

I disagree. This "test" would be another excuse to enable Republicans to gain more power. It would also encourage disenfranchised MAGA to vote R in the coming elections. Let's not distract them with anything but the war and the economy.

That doesn’t mean, when liberal donors meet with candidates when those candidates ask for big donations, and when constituents attend town halls, that liberal donors and constituents shouldnt demand they take a position on expansion.

It's a recipe for disaster.

Regardless of who is president or which party controls the house and senate.

Without court expansion, any significant legislation will either:

1) be blocked by the filibuster, or
2) overturned by the corrupt Roberts court

That means:
No codifying Roe
No new Voting Rights Act
No substantive action on climate change
No restrictions or regulations on the billionaires robbing America

It will mean gridlock politics-as-usual, pleasing only the billionaires and oligarchs, and further reducing the Democratic Party in the eyes of the voters.

The only way Democrats can convince voters they are fighters, is to push for court expansion to remove the obstructions for good governance that benefits the people.

I can’t think of a worse disaster than Americans continuing to suffer the consequences of the Trump era for decades after he is out of office.

of Goverment and we will not get there with the proposed litmus test.

And without control of the judicial branch, the power of the executive branch under a democratic president would be hamstrung and crippled by the court, as would any laws passed by a Dem majority congress.

That is by design - the court empowers Republican administrations and majorities, and weakens Democratic ones.

So, by refusing to consider expanding the court, we would lose the bulk of all real power in all three branches of government .

I am not satisfied with having mere mathematical majorities that are undermined by SCOTUS.

Let's not give the R's MORE power by imposing a purity test on Democrats.

We have an aging SCOTUS which if we win elections, can be replaced by a Democratic majority, including a President.

If Dems retake the senate in November, then Alito and Clarence will announce their retirements immediately after election day, and Trump will fill their seats before the end of 2026. If Dems don’t retake the senate, then I expect Alito and Clarence to retire before the end of his term in 2028.

I don’t see any other MAGA justices heading for retirement soon- Kagan and Sotomayor are the only other likely candidates, and maybe Roberts, but I think he would take his chances that there will be a republican in the WH in 2032, or even 2036, when he would be 82.

So, Roberts is the only wild card where a Dem president might get to fill a seat held by a conservative in the next 10 years.

That would shift the majority from 6-3 to 5-4, still not be enough to overturn Dobbs, restore voting rights or strip away presidential immunity.

How long should folks have to wait?

Even with court expansion, Americans will continue to be deprived of various rights for at least another three years; without expansion, those rights remain off the table for at least a decade, likely more.

Demanding Dem candidates’ support for court expansion is in no way a “purity” test; it is an “ability to govern” test. If they seek to represent their constituents in congress, then they should take their job of legislating seriously, and not just go through the motions,

After expanding the court, all Dem legislators would be free to vote their conscience on any other bill that came to the floor. If a bill passes, the Dems could feel secure that it would be implemented, and not quickly overturned by an extremist court.

We have to win, period.

You’re not making any sense.

My point is, without court expansion, there will be a conservative majority on the court for at least another decade, perhaps much longer.

You presume that supporting court expansion is an automatic electoral death sentence for the Democratic Party- I have not seen a shred of recent (2025 or later) evidence supporting that assumption.

With Trump-induced, Republican-enabled suffering intensifying and crossing regional, racial and partisan boundaries, now is the time to take this opening to show people the court’s role in how things got so bad.

Because of that suffering, We are going to win the house, and the odds of taking the senate are improving week by week.

Although I feel strongly that court expansion must be the party’s #1 priority, I don’t think it must be the #1 campaign issue- relieving the Trump-induced suffering of the people should be.

Court reform can be rolled into an attack on the widespread corruption of this entire administration- that’s something the data shows majority support for addressing.

I'm not going to repeat it.

Purity test. Those have worked out so well in the past. Lol

First the demands. Later the excuse to enable Republicans because the 'expand the courts' litmus test wasn't adhered to.

Set up a very high bar. Then blast democrats when they can’t reach it.

is another excuse to blame Democrats for the outcome of the "both parties are the same/lesser of two evils" crowd.

I too am awaiting the 'how' on this suggestion.

Thus keeping that seat securely conservative.

I imagine he would get bored being on the losing end of decisions for the rest of his life, as well as being limited by the new ethics rules passed by the Dems and upheld by the new liberal majority, so I suspect he wouldn’t even last five years on the court.

If he dies does Trump get to make a lifetime appointment?

Why is Trump there in the first place. No Democrat would have appointed right wing justices.

discussion and Bernie isn't on it.

malfeasance would be an issue if Democrats were picking the court. We all knew this, but some threw their power away.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how Bernie Sanders being 84 fits into all this.

certain politicians.

At age 76 , I'm more likely to be a victim of ageism than a proponent of it, lol..Try again.

I laughed at your distractions also.

Your 'history' on this board?..Recent American history, what?

As to what's 'obvious', the only thing meeting that description here is the lack of clarity in your writing.

A course in expository writing might help,. Have a nice one.

It’s all very familiar.

but keep digging..

Edit: the lol stage is here

..repeat baseless assertions?

Then again, I understand that it's easier than having to explain gobbledy gook.

It’s all very familiar.

works.

Oh, and Hillary and Kamala told America All this Horror Show was going to happen.. Hillary warned about the Supreme Court, and they both warned about Putin.

I saw so-called "progs" (they call themselves that, but they are not), including Sarandan, post that the sC didn't matter. How stupid and bitter do you have to be?

So heartbreaking that many don't care about Democracy. Only themselves

Mahalo & Aloha, Nixie. 💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜

speeches! If someone gives a speech, that is corruption, and who cares about the Supreme Court. It's okay to send messages through voting, but then everyone was supposed to gather and shake their fists for the Revolution. Millionaires and billionaires were the buzzwords, but now both are okay.

You nailed it, Cha. It's so tiring now to be told we need power -- no shit Sherlock. That's why you don't give elections away. I miss the smart people. Hillary and Kamala would not have nominated right wingers to the SC, as we know.

Mahalo Cha

Thank You, and On We Fight for Our Democracy!

Best of Good Luck to us in the Midterms/, with Thousands of evil forces against it.

people. It must be Shakespearean!"

That actually happened. Giving speeches used against Democrats as evidence of evil corrupt conspiracy -- and some people actually fell for it! Still falling for it!

Told SCOTUS didn't matter, called "vagina voters" and antisemitic because we supported HRC.

The "conscience" voters screwed us all over just so they could "bring on the revolution."

is the only important thing. Voting rights, reproductive freedom and vagina things -- distractions!

and they're still arguing that their 3rd party votes, trashing of Democratic candidates, etc. don't matter.

But, the Democrats that they helped put in minority status get slammed all the time for "not doing enough!!11"