If Democrats were able to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act

[dlk]

Would this conservative Supreme Court just overturn them? Because you know, litigious Republicans would file multiple suits the day they were passed.

[Bettie]

1. I guess that depends on their eagerness to

see their numbers increase.

[dlk]

4. Their numbers need to increase regardless

The current number gives too much importance to individual justices.

[Bettie]

7. I agree

but striking down those two, should we manage to get them passed would underline the importance of expanding the court and pointedly showcase their right wing, "no one but rich white dudes should vote" beliefs.

[lagomorph777]

16. Yes - honestly, any shred of restraint we see now is only because of that sword over their heads.

[Nexus2]

17. Their numbers need to increase now regardless of all the moaning about packing courts.

McConnell essentially already has (and would do more given the chance).

[Bettie]

21. I agree

I think we should have at minimum 13, one for each circuit court, ideally enough to have two to four 7 judge panels running all the time.

With randomly chosen panels it is easy for justices to simply not be placed on cases where they might have even the appearance of a conflict of interest and it is much harder for lawyers to tailor an argument to a specific justice.

There could be more cases heard and the loss of one justice wouldn't be a disaster or a windfall.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

2. I don't think so

If I am understanding correctly, in layman terms, the states can run there own elections anyway they chose, "unless congress says otherwise". I think this is Supreme Court proof.

[dlk]

6. In a rational world, yes

I worry with so many radical Republicans racing toward autocracy.

[pwb]

3. Pukes do everything just because they can. Always another side to everything with them.

They will try just to continue being Dicks.

[dlk]

9. They are definitely oppositional-defiant

[edhopper]

5. Yes the Roberts Court does not accept

the Right to Vote is a Constitutional Right.
The will favor the States that do not adhere to these laws.

[dlk]

8. We need a Constitutional Amendment

One that guarantees the right to vote for eligible voters. It also wouldn’t hurt to codify adequate funding for elections. Voting is foundational to our democracy.

[edhopper]

10. Never happen

too many Red States.

[dlk]

12. Not in the near future, true

[edhopper]

14. In the near future

I fear we will no longer have a Constitutional Democracy.

[dlk]

15. Our democracy is definitely on the precipice

We can’t take anything for granted at this point.

[uponit7771]

11. We already have one, Congress can impose voting rules for congressional candidates. We have Congress

... at the same time we have the president voted in in most states so therefore the voting happens at the same time and would be called prohibitive to have two different elections for the federal government for most states.

Therefore if Democrats are able to impose voting rules for the Congress most likely it'll hold for the presidential also

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

On the other hand I don't see the Roberts Court leaning more towards plurality in America.
There's a reason why America is lower on the democracy index than we were supposed to be

[dlk]

13. It would be better to have a specific voting right spelled out in the Constitution

The Robert’s court is clearly no friend to plurality.

[uponit7771]

22. RIGHT !! This is the elephant in the room

[dlk]

23. It seems logical

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. The current SCOTUS may not have time before 2022 elections to overturn new voting laws

And because of that, passing the new laws now would help ensure Dems grow their majorities in 2022, which would allow them to more easily pass laws expanding SCOTUS from the current 9 seats up to a minimum of 15 seats, for a new 9-6 liberal majority. That would help protect voting rights by the time any appeals reach the court.

In addition, expanded Dem majorities would help pass statehood for DC and PR.

[dlk]

19. I like your optimism!

[WarGamer]

20. Yes.