(From L-R) US Associate Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Jr., Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts look on during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S... (From L-R) US Associate Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Jr., Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts look on during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Donald Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla / POOL / AFP via Getty Images) MORE LESS

Here’s a brief follow up on yesterday’s post about the corrupt Supreme Court. Yesterday I noticed law professor Steve Vladeck arguing on Bluesky that civic democrats are making a mistake by seeking to “fix” the Court by, as he puts it, “permanently weakening it as an institution.” The gist of his argument is that you constrain the Court by “forcing it to look over its shoulder” as it decides case. In a post on the topic, he writes, “as compared to a time when Congress controlled things like when the Court sits; where it sits; which cases it hears; the Court’s budget; and what the justices must do when not hearing cases (i.e., ride their circuits), today’s Court can do just about whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and all without realistically having to look over its shoulder.”

I told him that I actually agree with the concept of having the court “look over its shoulder” — that you have a series of teeth in place to react to overreach. I’m not sure about the best method of applying that pressure. But I agree with the general principle. Or, rather, I did agree with it — but I think we’ve missed the window for that kind of intervention from Congress. (You can see our brief exchange here.)

Want to keep reading?

Join and get The Backchannel member newsletter along with unlimited access to all TPM articles and member features.