The Uncomfortable Truth

There’s a reality that many in the political establishment find difficult to accept: without Supreme Court reform, virtually no progressive agenda is possible. Not healthcare expansion. Not voting rights protection. Not environmental legislation. Not labor reforms. Not reproductive freedom. Nothing.

This isn’t hyperbole. It’s a simple recognition of how power actually works in American government. As long as six Republican-appointed justices hold veto power over the entire government, meaningful reform is dead on arrival.

Court reform isn’t just one item on a progressive wish list—it’s the foundation without which nothing else can be built. It is, as Josh Marshall recently argued, “the sine qua non of any reformist program.”

The Six-Justice Firewall

The current conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court functions as an impenetrable barrier to democratic governance. These six justices—all appointed by Republican presidents, most of whom lost the popular vote—have already demonstrated their willingness to strike down any legislation they find ideologically objectionable.

Consider what we’ve already witnessed:

  • Gutting the Voting Rights Act
  • Overturning Roe v. Wade after 50 years
  • Dismantling campaign finance regulations
  • Blocking public health measures
  • Enabling racial profiling in immigration enforcement
  • Weakening environmental protections

This isn’t judicial restraint. This is an activist Court imposing a minority political agenda on an unwilling majority. And they’re just getting started.

Any future progressive legislation—whether passed with slim majorities or overwhelming popular support—will face this same six-justice wall. They will find a way to strike it down, twist it beyond recognition, or hollow it out through the shadow docket.

The Inseparable Twins: Court Reform and Filibuster Abolition

Here’s the strategic reality that reformers must grasp: Court reform and filibuster abolition are “almost indistinguishably joined together.”

Why? Because expanding or reforming the Court requires legislation. And legislation requires either 60 Senate votes or the elimination of the filibuster. Since no Supreme Court reform will ever attract 10 Republican senators, the filibuster must go first.

This creates a clear logical sequence:

  1. Win the presidency and both chambers of Congress
  2. Eliminate the filibuster
  3. Pass Court reform legislation
  4. Only then can other reforms proceed

Trying to pass ambitious legislation without Court reform is futile—the six-justice majority will strike it down. But attempting Court reform without ending the filibuster is equally impossible. They’re two sides of the same coin.

The Timeline: January 2029

Let’s be clear-eyed about timing. The earliest realistic opportunity for Court reform is January 2029—when a new administration and Congress could take office with both the mandate and the votes to act.

This assumes Democrats win the 2028 presidential election and control both chambers of Congress. It also assumes they’ve done the necessary groundwork to make reform politically viable.

That four-year timeline might seem distant, but it’s actually tight. Because here’s the harder truth: the political infrastructure to support Court reform doesn’t yet exist.

The Work That Remains

Despite growing grassroots support for Court reform, most of the Democratic political establishment still treats it as “unthinkable.” Many elected officials quietly agree the Court is broken but publicly shy away from concrete solutions.

This gap must be closed, and it requires deliberate effort on multiple fronts:

Building Elite Consensus: Democratic elected officials, party leaders, and major donors need to embrace Court reform as essential, not radical. This requires education, persuasion, and political courage.

Shaping Public Opinion: While polls show majority support for term limits and other reforms, the public needs to understand why reform is urgent and how it connects to the issues they care about—healthcare, climate, voting rights, economic justice.

Creating Political Permission: Candidates need to feel they can campaign on Court reform without being destroyed as extremists. This means sustained messaging that reframes reform as defending democracy, not attacking it.

Developing Detailed Plans: Activists and lawmakers need to coalesce around specific proposals—whether Court expansion, term limits, jurisdiction stripping, or a combination—and develop detailed implementation strategies.

This groundwork cannot wait until 2028. It must begin now.

The Cost of Delay

Every year that passes without Court reform means more damage to American democracy:

  • More rights stripped away
  • More corporate power entrenched
  • More voter suppression enabled
  • More environmental regulations gutted
  • More presidential immunity expanded
  • More emergency docket abuses

The Court isn’t going to suddenly moderate. If anything, the six-justice majority will grow more emboldened, knowing they face no accountability and no meaningful opposition.

Delay isn’t neutrality—it’s acceptance of this status quo.

Conclusion: Everything Flows From This

Court reform isn’t a niche issue for legal scholars or court watchers. It’s the prerequisite for every other fight progressives care about.

Want universal healthcare? You need Court reform first. Want to address climate change? You need Court reform first. Want to protect voting rights? You need Court reform first. Want to restore reproductive freedom? You need Court reform first.

The question isn’t whether Court reform is important. It’s whether the political will exists to do what’s necessary. And building that will—among elected officials, opinion leaders, and the broader public—is the most important political work happening right now.

Because without breaking the corrupt rule of the six, everything else is just wishful thinking.