'BradCast' 5/13/2026 (Do Dems Have the Courage Required to Restore and Reform American Democracy? With Kate Riga of TPM)

This unprecedented assault on black political representation, the likes of which we have not seen since the Jim Crow era, the ghosts of the Confederacy has afflicted the United States Supreme Court majority, and is invading and haunting the nation right now, and we take that seriously. Good, me too. So what are you going to do about it? Joaquin? Well, I don't know why I came here tonight. I got the feeling there's something right. I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair. And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs. Clowns to the left of me. Jokers to the right. Here I am. From Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles, this is the broadcast. As heard on KPFK, 90.7 FM in LA, and on dozens and dozens of other fine affiliate stations. Over both the public's airwaves and the internets around the country and the world, blanketing planet Earth. I'm Brad Friedman, your friendly investigative blogger, journalist, troublemaker, muckraker, and all around swell fellow says me from bradblog.com. Thank you very much for joining us today. So yeah, speaking of what Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader, was mentioning there at the top of the show, how far do Democrats... need to go. How far will they go to push back against the years, years, frankly, of unfettered radicalism of the Republican Party, particularly under Donald J. Trump, in order to restore democracy and the rule of law once again. and put those ghosts of the Jim Crow Confederacy back where they belong. What institutions and traditions and norms will need to be toppled? Burned to the ground figuratively, of course, and rebuilt from scratch all over again when and if Democrats are able to use the existing corrupted system to somehow gain enough power to reconstruct that now broken system. Well, now is the time to start building the muscle memory for all of that, argues our guest joining us shortly. Kate Riga of Talking Points Memo will be here. She argues this week at TPM that, quote, any Biden-esque turning of the page relying on the institutions Trump has corrupted or exposed as rotted will not work.

Ultimately, she argues Democrats and other pro-democracy Americans are going to have to enact reforms that are now perhaps considered to be quite radical if... If we will ever be able to salvage democracy, even if Republicans and mainstream media how about it all in the bargain? We're all learning, I think, some hard lessons in recent weeks as the radical Republicans on the corrupted Supreme Court majority of hypocritically overturned years of precedent and decades of landmark laws in order to help the, well, to the specific political benefit. of the GOP. So do the Democrats, do we the people? Have the stomach to carry out what is now clearly required to undo, as longtime corruptor Mitch McConnell might say, root and branch, to undo the far-right corruption that has permeated virtually every institution of our republic in order to rebuild an American democracy from the proverbial ashes, do we? Well, I'm really looking forward. If somewhat trepidaciously, Desi Dessie Doyen, to that conversation with Kate Riga. Yeah. She's been writing about exactly this week on the heels of the right-leaning Supreme Court ruling in Virginia, just pulling the chair out for more than 1.6 million voters in that Commonwealth to prevent Democrats from lawfully rewriting the state's U.S. House map to benefit... Democrats in this year's critical midterm elections, the Republican Supreme Court there in that state undid all of that. Yes, the ghosts of the Confederacy, as it were, like Hakeem Jeffries says. It's time to have those conversations. Difficult conversations. Yes. But it is time to have them. But first, speaking of the critical midterm elections, it was Election Day on Tuesday in Nebraska and West Virginia, which both held statewide primary elections this week without too much drama or problems for voters at the polls, at least as I understand so far. Very quickly, let's hit a few of the top races and or noteworthy reported results, beginning in West Virginia, where voters had to overcome a new photo ID voting restriction in order to vote. Despite a lack of...

evidence of any polling place voter fraud in the state. No more presenting a utility bill as a valid form of ID. They already had voter ID there, but now they've just made it, you know, restricted it to the type of ID that many voters do not have. Even though the previous voter ID law they had prevented fraud for years. We now have this new law, so voters had to overcome that on Tuesday. Well, of course, Republicans don't like it when people vote. Yeah, they don't. As to the reported results today, as I said, few surprises. The incumbent Trump endorsed Republican U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito easily won her Republican primary, despite five GOP challengers there. On the Democratic side in a five-person race, Rachel Fetty-Ander. Fairly easily won the nomination to run against Capito in November in the otherwise very, very red state now of West Virginia. But stranger things have happened in blue-tide years if, in fact, this turns out to be one of them. Nonetheless, Cook Political Report rates this contest right now as solidly Republican. But a... Big result yesterday, as Boltz magazine's election expert Dan Daniel Nishanian reports, with two Supreme Court justices in West Virginia losing their bids to stay on the bench after they were appointed by GOP Governor Morrissey, despite heavy support from far-right conservative packs to help them stay on that bench. One of the winners. In that otherwise, I guess, sort of a retention election, is a moderate GOP lawmaker, reportedly. The other one is a longtime local judge, also with a moderate reputation, unlike the two far right folks who were nominated, who were appointed by the governor there. So he notes these are not Democratic wins, to be clear, but it is still two losses for far rights. so-called conservative groups. In West Virginia, make of that what you will. In the great state of Nebraska, in certainly the most interesting contest of the night, I think. Well, on the Republican side, incumbent senator and billionaire Pete Ricketts very easily won the GOP nomination over four other Republican challengers for the U.S. Senate, that wasn't a surprise. But on the Democratic side in the U.S. Senate race this year, Cindy Burbank. easily defeated like 89 to 10 a guy by the name of william forms who claimed

to be a lifelong Democrat, but who had apparently voted for Donald Trump and could not identify any Democrat that he had ever voted for. He also attended a Republican candidate workshop. Apparently, he was clearly a Republican plant meant to pull votes this November from independent U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborne, who ran a respectable if losing race against Nebraska's other. Republican U.S. Senator Deb Fisher back in 2024. Now, Democrats are actually backing Osborne this year, the Independent. So this Forbes guy was seemingly put onto the Democratic ticket or that the primary contest in hopes of getting him nominated to pull votes from Dan Osborne. So Cindy Burbank, an actual Democrat, who. won on Tuesday night, entered that race in order to stop Forbes from winning and she vowed to drop out of the contest if she won the primary. Republicans filed a complaint about that, but it was determined that they did so too late to push her off of the ballot. So she ran and she won, and I don't know if she's dropped out yet. I guess once the contest is certified, presumably she will drop out, and I suspect endorse Dan Osborne for the U.S. Senate. It's still going to be a tough climb for Osborne in an otherwise very red state of Nebraska. But in what could be a blue wave year, Democrats are hopeful that Osborne... And his populist working class campaign could unseat the very Trumpy billionaire Pete Ricketts in what would be a huge coup for the Democrats and their hopes of taking back the Senate majority from Republicans this year. I'd also—I'd also argue that it would be a victory for working class people in Nebraska because that is Dan Osborne's background. Yep. He's a factory worker, union guy. The second congressional district in Nebraska, the other congressional primary of note for now, was that second U.S. House district based in and around Omaha, which is very much a battleground district, even in normal times. It's described as the blue dot in the otherwise very red state. Well, Republican Don Bacon is... who holds the seat there. He is retiring from the U.S. House this year, and Democrats are seeing the district as a big pickup opportunity with Cook political report now rating the second district this year as Leans Democratic.

Republicans have chosen a guy by the name of Brinker Harding to run for that seat. He ran unopposed on Tuesday, but on the Democratic side, it was a seven-candidate race with a still very close contest, too close to call there, but 89% of the vote has been counted in between... And the results, the race is now between political activist Denise Jerome Powell and John Brett Kavanaugh. They're currently separated by just a point or two with 89% in. Jerome Powell is leading. She is the Latina co-founder of women who run Nebraska supporting progressive female candidates. She is currently up over union supporter, Brett Kavanaugh. Beyond that, In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State, Bob Evanan lost his GOP primary to businessman Scott Peterson, who echoes MAGA talking points when it comes to fraud, etc. But Evanan himself. According to Nishanian again from Boltz magazine has veered sharply toward voter suppression back in 2024. So he ain't so great himself. Peterson will now face Democratic candidate Sarah Slattery in November. though Peterson will be favored in this red state to decide who oversees state elections before the 28 presidential race. But again, strange things can happen in midterm elections, especially if it turns out to be a blue wave this year, as many are predicting. And if Dan Osborne can manage to... bring in a statewide wave in support of his independent candidacy. Next Tuesday, primary elections in six states in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. So it's going to be a big week. Nishania notes, by the way, speaking of Supreme Court retention elections, some big. Supreme Court elections in the great state of Georgia next week where no Supreme Court justice has ever lost there in more than 100 years, he says. But Democrats are hoping to oust two of them. next Tuesday. And Georgia Democrats have had pretty good luck of late doing, you know, the impossible like that. They put two Republicans, I'm sorry, two Democrats onto the statewide utility board, as I recall a few months back, which hasn't had a Democrat on it for years and years and years.

And, of course, in Alabama, even though voters have already been voting by mail for weeks now, Alabama has canceled primaries in, I believe, four of their U.S. House races to allow them time to gerrymander majority black districts out of existence, thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana versus. The ghost of Jim Crow. I'm sorry, Calais, Louisiana versus Kelly. And I've got to get to my guest momentarily, but I do want to be sure to hit this story today, given that it's so rare when we find a Republican these days doing the right thing for democracy. So I do want to highlight that. Our legal contributor at bradblog.com, Ernie Canning, reminded me we used to give out the so-called, what do we call them? The Intellectually Honest Republican Award. Right, right. I think it was originally called the Intellectually Honest Conservative Award. But then, of course, it began clear they're not really conservative. Not anymore. Not anymore. He did make a nomination. for that reward this week. Republicans in South Carolina's legislature on Tuesday rejected a plan aimed at flipping the state's lone Democratic-held House seat, which has long been occupied by one of the country's most senior and influential leaders. The rejection was a victory. At least for now, I'm going to underscore that, at least for now for Congressman Jim Clyburn, the Democrat whose seat. was and is still at risk, but Tuesday was a setback for Donald Trump. Again, for now, as we noted earlier in the week, after Reconstruction, South Carolina had a black majority, if you can believe it, in the state legislature. They sent eight black members to Congress. In the very few years after the Civil War, before the Supreme Court rulings, just a few years afterwards, unleashed Jim Crow. And it would then be nearly 100 years before the state of South Carolina would send the ninth black member to Congress. And that was Jim Clyburn. who Trump and the majority of the Republicans in the state legislature are trying to erase from Congress and, I suppose, the history books. But on Tuesday, South Carolina Republicans, a few of them decided not to redraw their map after a GOP leader warned that it could backfire.

Republicans now hold six of the state's seven congressional seats, but State Senate Majority Leader Shane Thomas Massie argued that a new map would spread out Republicans' core voters so that they would end up with five. We call that a dummymander. In a lengthy floor speech, about 47 minutes, the Republican leader Thomas Massie told his colleagues that they should not be too greedy. And he made a good and decent case for doing the right thing. So I do want to highlight just a minute or two of Thomas Massie's remarks on Tuesday. I will tell my Republican friends, Republicans are stronger when the Democrat Party is vibrant and viable. We are. Competition makes you better, y'all. You know, to most people in the country, I think this is the perfect example of just how much elected officials have lost their way. Too many people in power just want to do whatever it takes to stay in power. They'll do whatever it takes to keep it. But I ask, to what end? What do you do with it when you've attained it? I believe the legitimate use of power in this context is to make people safer. to ensure they have the freedom to make decisions to guide their own lives, to offer opportunities for success, you know, this whole outdated idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think you accomplish those goals by stamping out the opposition and not giving them a voice. Crushing the minority opposition is not a demonstration of strength. It's an admission of fear and a show of weakness. Trying to silence a voice, which is effectively what this does, right? That's effectively what this does. Trying to silence a voice is going to result in people wanting to hear that voice. That is especially the case here where that minority voice consistently represents 40 to 45% of the electorate.

Trying to stamp out that voice will cause more people to pay attention to it. It is a self-defeating effort. That was South Carolina's Republican Senate Majority Leader A. Shane Thomas Massie on Tuesday arguing against. gerrymandering, or I should say further gerrymandering, the great state of South Carolina, in order to write out the one remaining Democratic district left where Congressman Jim Clyburn has served for many, many years. So, you know, you can tell he's a Republican, by the way. He's not a Democrat in hiding because he called them... Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party. So yeah, that's a real Republican, but I think he's doing the right thing there. And good news on Tuesday, anyway, out of South Carolina with Republicans doing the right thing. Five Republicans voted with all of the Democrats to not redistrict the state. So that's good news. I think they needed a supermajority to do so. In this particular process, though apparently that good news... May not last. Politico is reporting late this afternoon that South Carolina GOP Governor Henry McMaster is expected to announce a special session on redistricting, teeing up the state legislature to pass a Republican gerrymander that would almost certainly cost Democratic rep Jim Clyburn, his seat in this year's midterms. Henry McMaster's plan. which Politico says is confirmed by four people familiar with the decision who were granted anonymity to share the details, is a reversal of the governor's position just earlier this month and it follows on pressure from Donald Trump and his allies to further gerrymander the state. Now, even though Republicans voted it down, It was not all of the Republicans who voted it down. And the special session, the rules under special sessions will allow lawmakers to pass a new map with a simple majority, unlike the supermajority that was required on Tuesday, making it likely that this measure will advance given the GOP's margins. in the state legislature. Henry McMaster cannot formally call the special session until lawmakers adjourn their regular session. That happens on Thursday. And until that decision is official, Politico notes, it is possible that the governor could change his mind. We will be watching.

Promise. On that score, related news in a conversation with TPM's Kate Riga on what Democrats need to do about all of this and whether they and we and you and I will have the stomach for it. You don't want to miss that conversation. Coming up next, I'm Brad Friedman, and this is the broadcast. What the public hears on the public airwaves matters. At the broadcast, we do our best to bring you accurate news and analysis on the issues that actually matter, and we do it all independently without corporate or political influence. But we can't do it without you, now more than ever. Please help us stay on your public airwaves by going to bradblog.com slash donate to help keep us going. That's bradblog.com slash donate. And thanks. I'm

Thanks to our bumper music, Sherpa, KCP, for that one. That's Ringo Starr from 2021. He's been waiting for a while for the tide to turn. Welcome back to the broadcast. Brad Friedman from bradblog.com, quote, the days of Democrats unilaterally disarming are over, particularly given how high the stakes are, said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on CNN in an interview published on Wednesday. As Republican-controlled states in the South. are now moving aggressively to redraw their maps after the corrupted activist right-wing Supreme Court majority further gutted the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Calais about two weeks ago and after the Virginia Supreme Court upended a special election last month in which voters chose to draw a new U.S. House map in the Commonwealth. that likely would have netted Democrats in additional four seats in this year's critical midterm elections. Republican governors are going as far as throwing away tens of thousands of votes already cast in ongoing primaries in states like Louisiana and Alabama and delaying elections to a later date in order to give their state's time to redraw their maps. The Supreme Court spent years blocking changes to House maps that might have been beneficial to Democrats months ahead of Election Day because, as they argued, citing the so-called very selectively applied Purcell principle, that changing maps too close to an election would result in chaos for voters and election officials alike. They prevented new maps that might have helped enfranchise thousands of voters, allowing rules to stay in place that would disenfranchise thousands of voters if the changes were made, as Brett Kavanaugh has described, quote, on the eve of an election. That was his rationale. Back in early December of last year, when explaining why Texas should be allowed to use a map that was found to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act for this year's November midterms. It was the eve of an election in early December of last year. Boy, have things changed. That very same court majority is now allowing states to literally cancel elections right in the middle. After tens of thousands of voters have already voted in order to let GOP already gerrymandered GOP state legislatures re-gerimander.

And yet, CNN reported, even many black lawmakers are on board, recognizing that if Democrats do not control Congress, the situation will be even worse for minority populations. As black Democratic rep Yvette Clark of New York told CNN, quote, That idea here is that in order to protect black voters and to advance progress in the Congress and to have accountability for what is taking place is to make sure that we have a Democratic majority. Fair enough. But again, that seems to be about 2028 since New York cannot constitutionally change their U.S. House maps until then. So what about what is happening right now? As Democrats seem to be forced to fight this battle with at least one hand tied behind their backs. Following the stunning four to three decision last Friday to toss out the results of a statewide election to draw new maps for the 2026 election in Virginia, ignoring the wills of 1.6 million voters in the Commonwealth. Well, Democrats, according to the New York Times, met to discuss how to respond to that ruling. During a private discussion on Saturday that included Democratic House members from Virginia and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the lawmakers vented anger at their defeat at the Virginia Supreme Court, spoke about a collective determination to flip two or three Republican-held seats under the existing map and discussed a bankshot proposal to redraw the congressional lines anyway. That according to three people who participated in the call and two others who were briefed on it. As talking points memos, Kate Riga summarized it, that so-called bank shot proposal goes something like this. Democrats would use a January state circuit court ruling. that had invalidated the amendment to redraw the maps because a Virginia court had claimed that county officials did not publicly post it three months before a general election in order to then invalidate an earlier amendment establishing the state's independent redistricting commissions on the very same grounds. Then... With that out of the way, the legislature can draw the map any way they like before this year's elections. But to make sure that the conservative-leaning state Supreme Court does not block this as well, boot them all out of office.

How? Well, lower the retirement age from 75 to 54 to cover all current justices. Then the Democratic General Assembly fills the vacancy with compliant replacements. A bank shot indeed. Riga notes that there are at least a few problems with this, among them, that the head of Virginia's election department has said that it would have to be done by May 12 in order to ensure election officials can carry out the August 4 statewide primary elections. While that date has now passed, Democrats seem to have chosen instead to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that, you know, the one that helped create all of these problems in the first place. So, well, we will see. But good luck there. But more to the point today, Riga goes on to note, if I am reading her correctly, that that bankshot proposal is exactly the type of hardball the Democrats will need to carry out whenever and wherever they collect the power to do so, despite the fact that, as she argues, quote, the only way to permanently stave off this authoritarian assault. If Democrats get lucky enough to win a trifecta in 2008, will be through reforms considered radical. Republicans and mainstream media will howl, she writes, and Democrats will be cornered every day and accused of perpetuating a dictatorial takeover. And the public, which will likely get much of their information through this lens, may not like it. It will be wrenching for a party of institutionalists, but she says any Biden-esque turning of the page, relying on the institutions that Trump has corrupted or exposed as rotted will not work. If Democrats ultimately back off in Virginia, she argues, finding this kind of gambit too scary or distasteful while the southern states gleefully stamp out black voting power, well, it'll be a good data point on how far the party is from one that could salvage democracy in two and a half years. Joining us now is Kate Riga, longtime Washington, D.C. based reporter for Talking Points Memo and co-host of the Josh Marshall podcast with, of course, TPM founder, Josh Marshall. Kate Riga, welcome to the broadcast.

Thanks so much for having me. All right. I am grateful for your piece on this, even if I've got to say in advance is a little bit scary in some ways, to be honest. But you cover this stuff at TPM as close as anyone, and I want to talk about why you are making this maybe difficult to stomach argument in many ways. But first, it does appear for now anyway that Virginia Democrats did, in fact, back off of that. too scary or distasteful bankshot gambit of essentially firing the entire, you know, state Supreme Court adopting their house map anyway, because the election chief said that it's got to be done by this week in order to meet the August 4 primary. But honestly, Kate. August 4? I mean, that's that's forever away by the standards that Republicans are now using, you know, literally stopping elections after voters have already been voting. Is that alone, that deadline, three months out, is that sort of an example of folks being too squeamish or failing to rise to the moment here as you see it? Yeah, totally. And. You know, on top of the kind of silly, we have to stick to this timeline thing while we're watching, you know, Louisiana and Alabama suspend their primaries and throw out tens of thousands of votes. You also have the state Senate majority leader explicitly saying, you know, this is a little bit extreme for, you know, of a response to a ruling we didn't like. So. They're not making any bones about the fact that they just think this is too radical and they're kind of too squeamish to stomach it. And I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that, you know, booting a whole state Supreme Court is, it's weird. It's distasteful. It feels anti-democratic. You know, I understand all that, but you have to. Look at the playing field right now. And, you know, you can look at, let's say, Utah, okay, where their state Supreme Court has been faithfully enforcing this voter approved gerrymandering ban. So what does the legislature do? They add two more seats to put two far right-wing judges on the... on the bench to kind of pull it to the right. And then they also create this quote unquote constitutional court specifically to hear election district related challenges. So they can also just kind of take the gerrymandering cases to this pseudo newly created just add water court where they can put compliant. justice is there and kind of get the result that they want. You know, Ohio, similar story, right? Their state Supreme Court is kind of faithfully knocking down these partisan gerrymanders. So Ohio adopts newly partisan judicial elections in order to remake the court, right? So it's just red states are doing this all the time and reaping the benefits. And I understand that kind of, you know, unraveling these institutions is.

is scary, is off-putting. But I think you just come back to, you know, what's the alternative? Right. So now Democrats just have to live under these rules that Republicans don't. And as a result. you know, be locked out of power or make power very hard for them to win. You know, that's just untenable. And I think your boss, Josh Marshall, made a point along those lines today or yesterday, I think, basically saying that the option, that the alternative seems to be do nothing, leave everything as it is, essentially. You write in support of your argument that a friendly sort of institutionalized Biden-esque turning of the page. that that will not do the trick this time, that, quote, if Democrats try a many version of these radical reforms in Virginia, the backlash will be swift and very loud, but all of this is essentially practice building muscle memory for 2028. And I think that idea of building muscle memory is a good idea. I know that, as you point out, Republicans have it. They have, you know, We recall, I'm sure you do, you know, all of the screams about, oh, Democrats want to pack the court. And then, as you note, they did exactly that in Utah. Republicans did in Utah, in Georgia, in Florida. They did those very same. things. It seems they have the muscle memory to do these sorts of things. I've got some questions about all of that, but expand on that idea for me first of building this muscle memory for 2028. Yeah. I mean, so Democrats are just characterologically nervous about. behaving badly, right? Like this is why they're too vulnerable to bad faith criticism and always have been. Whereas Republicans. It's just baked in that they're going to do whatever they can to grab power. And abiding by norms, they don't do that, right? Democrats are the babysitters. Republicans kind of can do whatever they want. And too often, Democrats let themselves be cowed by the right wing, you know, kind of media ecosystem and the mainstream media ecosystem, which also... abides by these beliefs that Democrats should be held to a higher standard than Republicans. So, you know, the muscle memory idea is just if Democrats get swept into power in 28 with a trifecta, this Supreme Court is not going to go quietly. These Republican interests are not going to go quietly. They are going to, you know, big industry business, you know, kind of the polluting sector, all of these.

very powerful entities are going to know that they are existentially endangered if they no longer have a Supreme Court, which is a permanent check on Democratic administrations. So there is going to be all kinds of outcry and accusations that Democrats are being radical and anti-democratic and out of step with what the American people want. And so I think that Democrats have to... get used to that, not be cowed by that, be willing to take it, and at the same time be kind of crafting a message to explain this to people. And I think they did that surprisingly well with the response to the redistricting war, which Republicans clearly didn't expect. They thought Democrats would just kind of roll over. They didn't. I thought Hakeem Jeffries in particular kind of shocked me with his kind of aggressive messaging on this. And I think they ended up. you know, before two weeks ago, in a pretty good place, right? They had fought Republicans to a draw. They had figured out a way to talk about redistricting that I think was pretty accessible and pretty justifiable to people. And that is all important skill set building leading up to 28. And I think this Virginia... you know, kind of fix would have been another good test run because, you know, you're trying out something silly to hold on to power, right? Like you can put on whatever facade you want to try to justify it. But, you know, the court made this decision based on a ticky-tackey kind of stupid ruling. The people had already spoken. That deserves to go into effect, right? It doesn't have to get more complex than that. And each time they're given this opportunity and they kind of roll over and say, you know, I will just vote harder. That is a concerning omen to me. Yeah. You know, when I read your piece on this, the argument you were making, actually, as I said, sort of made me uncomfortable. And I've been long calling for, you know, things like doing away with the filibuster, unpacking the court. by expanding it, et cetera. But I think the idea of learning to stomach these sorts of ideas, of building that muscle memory, I think that's important and is even done, frankly, by articles like yours, discussions like this. And to be frank, it occurred to me that, you know, voting to end the filibuster and reform the Supreme Court, et cetera, they all sound kind of a lot less. radical when compared to this idea in Virginia of, you know, firing everyone and, you know, a very, you know, for the old people, very Carl Rove, Tom DeLay, Scott Walker sort of thing, but, you know, commonplace now in the Trump era where he does that. But maybe it's worth doing in Virginia. Things like that are worth doing, if only to make the other actions, you know, killing the filibuster or unpacking the court and so forth seem a little. but more palatable to not just the general public, but even to Democrats to some extent. Crazy notion? I mean, help them, not just us get used to it, but help the Democrats get used to it. I think that's totally right. And I think what is kind of a comfort to the squeamishness side of things is Republicans are...

running roughshod over these norms and ripping apart the institutions in service of entrenching permanent power. That is their ultimate goal. If Democrats, on the other hand, you know, get a trifecta in 28, reform the court, get rid of the filibuster, you know, make DC a state, their first legislative actions will be. instituting nationwide gerrymandering reform, right? Like passing voting rights laws, protecting abortion rights. It's the ultimate aims of the parties are diametrically different. So, you know, if you have to do some of this norm breaking and act a little republican-e on the route to kind of restoring civic democracy, I mean, I think that that has to be worth it. Because again, what's the alternative? Just the authoritarian slide, right? Yep. And, you know, We talked a little bit on this show last week with Alicia Steve Bannon of the Brennan Center about the types of Supreme Court reforms she'd like to see. And after that show, when I wrote about it at Brad Blog, one of our longtime commenters, Dread, had suggested that some of the ideas for reform were unconstitutional and would require an amendment to the Constitution, which is very difficult to make happen. And when I asked which one, he cited. term limits. Now, the Constitution does not actually mandate lifetime appointments for judges or for justices, but I am familiar with a constitutional, so-called originalist argument that it does, that it does require a lifetime appointment and you'd have to make an amendment and so forth to change it. But my thinking was, fine, you know, adopt. Supreme Court term limits into law in Congress, have it signed by the president, if Democrats are ever at a place where they can do that, and let it be challenged all the way up to where the Supreme Court, to be decided by the very same people, presumably who are directly impacted by a law like this. Frankly, that's the kind of constitutional crisis. That I can get behind. Is that the sort of reform that we're all going to have to sort of strengthen our stomachs for, as you see it, if we're ever to have, you know, actually have a small D democratic renewal reconstruction after the post-Trump era? Yeah, I think the Brennan Center's term limit idea is really interesting, which I'm sure she ran through last week, but this idea of, you know, 18-year term limits, senior status, you go serve on a lower court, which is commonplace in the judicial system right now for, you know, everyone except the Supreme Court. I think that is going to be the tricky part of either doing term limits or expanding the court is you have to find a way. to prevent those reforms from being judicially nullified by this court, which obviously these reforms are counter to their interest. Right. And there are some ideas bouncing around about that. It might be a case of removing their jurisdiction, you know, over their reforms to their own body. You know, the details kind of being fine-tuned there. But that is the kind of thing that...

I'm kind of partial to the term limit one, honestly, because you can see that adding justices to the court ballooning kind of out of control. You know, each time there's a shift in power, there'll be more justice is added. And the Brennan's inner idea with each president gets two appointments, you know, that seems a little more tempered. But I think either way, you're going to have. the entities I mentioned before kind of howl that this is unconstitutional, this is not allowed. And at some point, Democrats just have to say, we're doing it. It's allowed under our interpretation, right? Because that's what Republicans always do. I mean, that's the whole originalist thing. Right. Is completely divorced from the text, except when it, you know, serves them kind of contorting the plain meaning of things into other things. Exactly. And so I think Democrats need to kind of give them a taste of their own medicine a little bit. Yeah. Show me where it says lifetime appointments in the Constitution. Because it's not there. It's not there. So let's have that fight. I mean, you know, the question is, A, are, you know, are American Democrats and progressives strong enough for this kind of fight to stomach this sort of thing? And what of the critique, Kate Riga, that you're just sinking to their level? It's a race to the bottom. You know, when they go low, we go high, not in play anymore. Right. So on the first point, will they have the stomach? That is my biggest fear kind of going into 28. I think we're seeing kind of signs in the right direction. I think the midterm elections will be a good indicator based on how well candidates do who have made. you know, fighting kind of one of their big appeals that's often translated through opposition to Chuck Schumer, you know, as a kind of shorthand for being against this old institutionalist kind of one hand tied behind your back kind of thing. I also think that the 28 Democratic nominee, whoever that ends up being, will have enormous influence over how compliant. the Democratic Congress ultimately is with this. You know, Democratic, or not just members of Congress in general are. majority herd animals, you know, they kind of will go the way that the party leadership wants them to go. And I think if you have Democrats swept into power under this remit of reform, restoration, expansion of rights, that even members who are constitutionally kind of averse to this kind of thing will probably in the end go along. And I think it's something that...

I know Josh talks about a lot as well. It's sort of a litmus test. Now is the time in 2026. You know, you talk to your candidates. Are you in favor of reform? Ask them now so that when they get into office, they have a mandate, a requirement. They're already on record as saying, yes, I can get behind this. You know, of course, Democrats are going to be tard as radical. But the thing is, Republicans always do that anyway. You know, so it would, you know, well, let me ask you, would it be a gift to them to actually be radical since Dems are going to be accused of that anyway? Yeah, I know. I think you're exactly right. And that's a really important point because along with this theme of Democrats being too responsive to bad faith criticism, they sometimes will just get in this defensive crouch where it's like if you don't move, they won't. falsely accuse you of being, you know, a communist or whatever. And it's the right wing media ecosystem. the juice that fuels it are these hyperbolic fear-mongering claims about the opposition party. And that will always be true. It's true when Democrats are doing very little, you know. It's true when they are trying to do bigger things. So I think you're exactly right. They're going to call you radical anyway. So you might as well, you know, enact the reforms that actually allow you to pass. the planks of your party, which is, I think, a huge part of this too. You mentioned the filibuster, right? It's not just that it makes... you know, the Senate so sclerotic and unable to pass legislation, it means that Democrats in particular, the party that wants to legislate, right? Republicans just want to pass tax cuts and do the fund the Pentagon hugely. They can do that through reconciliation. Democrats are the ones who are so affected by the filibuster because they have all these policies that are part of their ideology that they want to pass that they are stymied by. So. I think what should bolster them in this reforming the Supreme Court and getting rid of the filibuster is the idea that you are just removing. asymmetrical obstacles that stop you from enacting your agenda. Yeah, and the idea, especially when it comes to the filibuster, the idea that, well, we don't want to get rid of majority rule. I mean, come on. That's how democracy works. And you know what? Yeah. If you're in the minority, Democrats, if you're in the minority again, you won't have that protection.

you know, Republicans will be able to run roughshot over you, but newsflash, A, they already are, and B, if they do in a way that Americans don't like, then they throw the bums out. Yeah. That's the theory here behind our democracy, which has been so bastardized along the way by who? Well, the very Supreme Court, we're talking about the need to ultimately reform. But. None of it happens. If we don't talk about it, if we don't, like you say, build that muscle memory, help folks get a stronger stomach for it. Help me, Kate Riega, get a stronger stomach for it. And so for that and for your piece doing exactly that. Like I said, I was kind of scared to talk about it. But I'm glad we are doing so because I think we have to. So thank you for that piece. And thank you for joining us today, Kate. Oh, thanks so much for having me. Kate Riga is a Washington-based, DC-based reporter for Talking Points Memo. She does really important work over there. Check it out at talking points memo.com. She's also the co-host with Josh Marshall of the Josh Marshall podcast. And you can find her on the blue skies. See how strong her stomach is where she is Kate Riga, Riga. Thanks, Kate. Thanks so much. You bet. Okay. Wow, that's a lot to think about. Well, yeah, yeah, it is, but we all have a lot to think about. And, you know, it ain't going to be easy. There's going to be a lot of people are frightened by it. Yes. I'm going to be frightened by it. But, you know, the alternative is more of this. The alternative is, you know, as Josh said, and she said, doing nothing. And clearly, doing nothing ain't working out. No, definitely not. And I think part of what she is suggesting is to think seriously about, well, what would Republicans do in this situation and proceed with, you know, an eye to trying to rebuild democracy, but you have to do it, as you mentioned, on the system that has been corrupted. So it's really difficult. And that's also the problem is that, well, what would Republicans do? Well, they would play dirty. They would violate the law. They would violate the Constitution. They would do anything. So how far do you go to act like Republicans, you know, before you really are acting like Republicans, before you really are violating, you know, the laws and what this nation is supposed to stand for? That's the difficult line. And that's, I know that a lot of people are concerned about crossing that line. I know that, you know, listen, Joe Biden, when he, you know, they had a chance to reform the Supreme Court. Didn't want to. He's an institutionalist. It wasn't because he's a bad guy. It's because, look, you know, if we do that, then they'll do that. Then, you know, the war never ends. Well, guess what? The war never ends if you don't take action or maybe it does end. And you have lost the war. Which kind of feels like what is going to happen unless we all. Pardon the sexist, grow a pair and, you know, do what we need to do here. Yeah, it's time to have those discussions, have that fight, have it all happen out in front, in front of everybody, in front of the public, and talk about it and build that case now. And hold your favorite candidates for whatever party accountable and get them on record.

Are they going to stand up for democracy? All right. We've got to get out. Thanks again to Kate Riga of TPM. Thanks to my producer, Desi Doyen. Thanks to all of you for spending a portion of your day or night with us. It's always appreciated and an honor. If you missed any portion of today's show or want to share it with someone you know, love or hate, it is easier than ever to do at the newly. Redesigned, Bradblog.com. Check it out. All of our shows are there for free since the beginning of time. Thanks to those of you who hit the donate button while you're over there. It'll take you about 60 seconds. Please consider filling out the form. Make a donation of any amount you can afford one time or on a monthly basis. All of it is needed. All of it is appreciated. All of it helps us stay on your public airwaves. Drop me email. I'm Bradcast at Bradblog.com and on the social media, especially Blue Sky. I am the Brad Blog. See you there. Until we see you here. Hopefully tomorrow, I'm Brad Friedman. Good luck, world. I've been waiting since the break of dawn. I've been waiting so long for the tides. It's turned. You're listening to the Bradcast. We are 100% listener-supported thanks to listeners like you, who stopped by bradblog.com slash donate.