9 Justices, Zero Accountability, And A Whole Lot Of Problems

At some point, the new Democratic leaning Congress is going to have to deal with the Supreme Court problem. 

After years of watching the Supreme Court throw its weight around, making decisions that affect everything from how much power a president gets to who gets to vote, abortion access, and just how far the White House can go, talking about fixing this court is no longer some progressive pipe dream. It’s overdue.

The question is what Congress can legally change, what requires a constitutional amendment, and whether lawmakers can agree on what an accountable Supreme Court should actually look like.

First, let’s talk about the elephant in the courtroom: court expansion.

Expand The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court currently has nine justices, a number established by Congress rather than the Constitution. That means Congress can change it through ordinary legislation. One idea is to expand the Court to 13 justices, adding four seats. And I know this feels much like making the rules just because it’s your football, but I don’t care. Republicans stuffed the Court with conservative judges who all lied during their confirmation hearings. So I don’t care. Expanding the Court would address the MAGA imbalance and allow a new generation of judicial perspectives onto the bench.

Establish An Ethics Code With Actual Consequences

I don’t have enough words to talk about all of the ethical violations that Clarence Thomas has had since sitting his crusty ass on the bench, but just know that his relationship with Harlan Crow, including the Republican benefactor purchasing his childhood home and paying for his grandnephew’s education, would’ve gotten him fired if he worked at Subway. 

That’s because no one actually polices the Supreme Court. So, in 2023, the Supreme Court adopted its first formal Code of Conduct. The problem is that no one actually enforces it, so what does it actually mean?

Congress could consider legislation establishing an enforceable ethics framework, requiring meaningful investigations of alleged violations, clearer gift restrictions, and public reporting of findings.

And while we’re discussing gifts, somebody might want to explain why accepting extravagant hospitality from wealthy benefactors (Thomas, again) should be treated as a disclosure inconvenience rather than a serious question about judicial independence.

Put Term Limits On Supreme Court Justices

Fam, I don’t like speaking ill of the dead, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 87 years old when she died while still serving on the Supreme Court. And while some see it as heroic, Ginsburg serving on the highest court in the land right up until her death is what turned the court into a 6-3 majority in favor of people who roll cigarettes into their shirt sleeves.

What’s worse is that Ginsburg knew she was going to die. 

Know how I know she knew? 

She was 87 years old! 

Why should anyone have the power to shape American law for 30 or 40 years simply because they were fortunate enough to get a lifetime appointment?

Supreme Court justices currently serve during good behavior, effectively giving them lifetime appointments unless they retire, die, or are impeached and convicted.

One proposal gaining attention is an 18-year limit on active service, with a new justice taking the bench every two years. The idea is to make appointments more predictable, reduce the political gamesmanship surrounding retirements, and prevent individual justices from holding extraordinary power for generations.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and several Democratic colleagues reintroduced legislation in July 2026 to establish this system.

But I like it.

Make Recusal Rules Mean Something

Do you know what Supreme Court enforceable recusal rules, the Easter Bunny’s tax return and Bobo the Fool have in common? They don’t exist.

As it stands, a Supreme Court justice would have to recuse themselves only after they realize there is a financial, personal, or professional conflict involving a case. That literally never happens. Did I already tell you about the Harlan Crow buying Thomas’ childhood home and then letting his mother live rent-free? 

Congress could establish clearer, enforceable recusal requirements, including mandatory written explanations when justices refuse to step aside despite credible conflict-of-interest concerns.

There should also be an independent process for reviewing disputed recusals.

Drag The Shadow Docket Into The Sunlight

The Supreme Court has a fail-safe that allows for “emergency cases” to be resolved without the extensive arguments, explanations, and deliberation associated with its traditional process.

The so-called shadow docket is essential when an actual emergency arises, but who is determining what constitutes an emergency? America needs to know, especially since the decisions in these cases could have tremendous effects on people’s lives.  

Here’s the thing: Democrats might control both chambers of Congress, but that doesn’t mean they can do whatever the hell they want. They don’t have the 60 votes in the Senate to get around a filibuster, and they certainly don’t have enough votes to override a presidential veto. So no, Democrats can’t just stroll into the Capitol, throw four extra robes on the Supreme Court and tell Clarence Thomas he has to share a bathroom.

But there is plenty they can do. They can hold hearings. They can drag some of these justices in front of Congress and start asking questions. They can investigate the shady relationships, the questionable gifts, and the kind of ethical behavior that would get the average American fired before they could finish explaining themselves.

They can introduce legislation, put some actual teeth behind ethics rules, and make it a whole lot harder for Supreme Court justices to operate like nobody is watching.

And that’s really the point. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a private country club for wealthy Republican benefactors. It is not a retirement community for politically connected lawyers. And it certainly isn’t supposed to be a lifetime subscription to unchecked power.

These people are supposed to interpret the Constitution, not act like they own the damn thing.

Americans should be able to trust that the people making decisions about their lives are following the same basic rules of accountability that everybody else has to follow.

And if we’re serious about restoring some faith in American institutions, maybe we should start with the one that has spent the last several years making people wonder whether anybody is actually in charge.

As for Clarence Thomas, if he wants to spend his golden years posting shirtless vacation photos and living his best Republican-benefactor-funded life, by all means, knock yourself out.

Just stop making the rest of us wonder who’s paying for the damn vacation.

SEE ALSO:

The Significance Of Mississippi Electing A Black Democratic Senator

Omar Coming, And Trump’s White House Is Already Losing Its Mind