As Barack Obama once gloated, elections have consequences. He said so in defense of his leftist agenda. And indeed, it is true: elections have consequences, as the election of President Donald Trump showed after four abysmal years of Joe Biden.
But all too often, voters focus on issues that seem to affect them most directly, usually their own bottom line, and ignore more consequential, longer-term political goals.
This election is no different. The primary reason Democrats are enjoying good polling numbers — however overhyped they may be — has little to do with their policy objectives and more to do with gas prices and generally high living costs that haven’t come down since Trump took office.
That doesn’t mean the Democrats have kept quiet about their legislative agenda. In a demonstration of just how radical the entire party has become, Democrat lawmakers are talking about opening up their plans to fundamentally change the U.S. Supreme Court.
Frustrated with a more conservative-leaning Court that has handed down many decisions with which they have taken great umbrage — the Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturning Roe v. Wade is at the top of that list — Democrats have been pushing a dubiously framed agenda to enact “ethics reforms” on the nation’s highest court. This agenda has two primary goals: term limits for justices and expanding the Court’s size.
The obvious reason for this drastic change to the Court is to inflict increasingly radical leftist policies upon the American populace, rubber-stamped by justices who hold an equally radical agenda.
The Left disingenuously frames Court reform as an effort to “protect” democracy, which itself is a laughably biased play to deceive Americans into thinking Democrats are just looking out for their best interests. In truth, it’s a blatant power grab.
How widely accepted is this agenda among Democrats? Wide enough that Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, and many others repeatedly and publicly press the issue.
Furthermore, almost every current Democrat Senate candidate has expressed support for Court packing, justice term limits, or both. This includes red-state Democrats like Alaska’s Mary Peltola and Georgia’s Jon Ossoff.
Ossoff once said Democrats shouldn’t expand the Court “just because a justice may be confirmed with whom we disagree on policy.” Now he says he wouldn’t “rule out any judicial reform” while spinning the bogus narrative that the Court needs a Democrat-created binding ethics code.
Maine’s Troy Jackson said, “I think that we should have term limits, and I’m not against putting more people on the [Supreme Court] because this court obviously is not working.”
Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed argues for “ending the [Supreme Court’s] life-time appointments, imposing limited terms, and allowing the same number of appointments for each presidential term.”
In short, as is so often the case with the Democrat Party, its only policy direction is further and further left.
Of course, even if the Democrats win majority control of both the House and Senate, passing their legislative agenda items, especially in the Senate, would be nearly impossible. Beyond the obvious issue of Trump being in office for the next two years and likely to veto the Democrats’ agenda, the Senate filibuster also remains a major obstacle.
On the filibuster, Senator Durbin now opposes eliminating it, even if Democrats retake the Senate. That is likely because Democrats can’t override Trump’s veto. Indeed, the earliest they could hope to pass their Court agenda would be 2029, and only if a Democrat wins the presidency.
Durbin’s sly political move merely shows that Democrats may occasionally appear to be moderating their increasingly radical leftist agenda. The truth is they’re always leaning into it.
