If the Dems ever get 2/3 of the Senate then, IMO, it is a sane electorate giving them a super majority to correct the wrongs of the past. Which includes removing Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh (removal of Kavanaugh is assuming Trump conspired with Russia - otherwise Kavanaugh is a legitimate selection and should remain). Personally, I would allow them to stay, however I would recommend adding 2 more justices to the SC and attempt to get statehood approved for DC and Puerto Rico.
I'm strongly against political vigilantism -- two eyes for each eye in an ever-escalating cycle of destruction. One of the main benefits of having laws is the prevention of spiraling violence, and the same general principle should apply to non-violent (political) feuds. If each side is always trying to one-up the other side's wrongs (of course, they are just trying to equalize the wrongs in their own view, but escalating them in their opponents' view) we just end up with a whole lot of wrong, wrong, wrong.
Using laws to redress such grievances is much preferable to using vigilantism.
If what the Republicans did to Garland was wrong -- and I very much think it was -- the appropriate response isn't to try to do something just as wrong in return. It's to use whatever constitutional remedies are available to redress the situation. That certainly includes pointing out incumbent Republicans' egregious wrongdoing during their reelection campaigns. I'm not sure what else it can include (I'm open to creative ideas), but it doesÂ
not include impeaching duly confirmed judges for purely partisan reasons. People should go watch a Charles Bronson movie to get that urge out of their system.
When the law doesn't effectively prohibit a given type of wrongdoing, I think members of the aggrieved political party should work on solving the problem by fixing the law -- not by taking their turn at flouting the principle that, just five minutes ago, they purported to cherish.
If one party rigs the system in its favor by gerrymandering, the appropriate response by the other party is to prohibit gerrymandering -- not to gerrymander even more egregiously in its own favor.
If one party suppresses the vote among demographics unfavorable to it, the appropriate response by the other party is to make it harder to suppress votes -- not to start muffling the other sides's voters as soon as it gets the chance.
If one party uses unethical means to tilt the court in its own favor, I don't know the exactly appropriate response -- that's a hard one -- but I'm pretty confident that it'sÂ
not to engage in court-packing. That way lies spiraling offense against sane and orderly government. The first thing Democrats should do when they have enough power is toÂ
prohibit any President from embiggening the Supreme Court beyond its current number. Fix the maximum number of seats at nine. They should also feel free toÂ
require an up-or-down vote on nominations after they are made. Both might require constitutional amendments, but that doesn't seem impossible.
I'm fully on board with granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, but that's based on the merits of doing so, not based on partisan gamesmanship. I'd be in favor of it just the same if they were likely to vote Republican. Puerto Rico would be the 29th largest of the 51 states (by population) if it were included. Washington DC is significantly smaller than Puerto Rico, but it is still bigger than Vermont or Wyoming. If Wyoming gets two Senators and a (voting) Representative, Washington DC should as well.