Rugoz wrote:All that falls apart if you allow an expansion of the court. If a Trump-like figure with support in the Senate would win the election, he could simply double the size of the court, appoint loyalists and hereby eliminate all constitutional oversight.
Exactly, exactly why the Democrats need to overthrow the constitutional guard rails. It was those guard rails that allowed Trump to get elected. There were lots and lots of people who voted for Trump in 2016 that were deeply uneasy about voting him, but persuaded themselves to vote for him precisely because they comforted themselves with the thought that his power was limited. I don't know why people find this so hard to understand but there are 2 iron rules for politics in a 2 party system.1 Never, never, ever put the short term interests of your country before the medium term interests of your party.2 Never, never, ever put the short term interests of your party before the long term interests of your political career.
When Jeremy Corbyn stood for leader of the British labour party, half the parliamentary Conservative Party went out and got temporary Labour membership so as they could vote for him. They didn't hesitate to put party before country, which is why they are in government and the Labour and the Lib Dems are not. The Lib Dems totally blew it in 2010. Third parties don't get many opportunities to break the system open in a 2 party system, you must be utterly ruthless when they arise. I must confess I thought Boris had blown it, that he had just been too blatant in his narcissistic pursuit of self interest. but no I was wrong. Same with Trump I didn't expect him to win in 2016, Trump's utterly ruthless application of the two principles carried the day. Under the 2 party system there's no room for nuance, no room for ethics, loyalty or honour. Under the two party system winning is all that matters.