Expert has a brilliant strategy for Democrats to protect their agenda from the Supreme Court
Although Democrats now control the White House and both houses of Congress, there is one branch of the federal government where their ideas presently have very little influence: the U.S. Supreme Court. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi find themselves saddled with the most right-wing Supreme Court in generations. But writer Keshav Poddar, in an article published by Slate this week, offers a possible Supreme Court coping strategy for Biden's administration and Democrats in Congress: essentially, backup plans for their legislation.
"Against all odds, an ideologically reinvigorated Democratic Party has won the House, Senate and presidency," Poddar observes. "Democrats have the opportunity to finally deliver long-overdue reforms to address structural economic inequality, provide every American with adequate health care and take aggressive action to save our environment before it is too late. But (Senate) Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has left Democrats with one big problem: the courts."
Although Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, six of the nine current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents. Some liberal pundits have proposed packing the court — that is, increasing the number of justices, which President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed during the 1930s. But Poddar points out that Democrats' slim majority in the Senate simply isn't enough for the type of "knockdown, drag-out fight that such a move would require."
Instead of thinking about court packing, Poddar suggests, Democrats should consider "another way to stop the Court from totally derailing progressive economic reform that Democrats can use right now." "Democrats could deploy a new legislative tactic that has never been tried before: They can include 'clearly constitutional' precautionary backup provisions in progressive legislation that would automatically take effect if the primary policies in the bill are invalidated," Poddar recommends. "The backup provisions would usually involve extreme, but undeniably constitutional, policies designed to achieve the same original goals as the preferred policy. This will either force the Court to lay off of progressive programs, or enable progressive policy aims to be achieved even if it intervenes."
SOURCE: https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court/
= new reply since forum marked as read
and won't allow access. So, can you maybe just provide an excerpt to the bottom line action that can be done? If it's inconvenient, no worries. maybe someone will offer commentary on it or it will eventually surface elsewhere. 
