Without Diana Ross, The Supremes couldn't cut it

But the Supremes without Anthony Kennedy won't change a whit. So he hit a few left notes right: he was no moderate.

Three Blue Dog Democrats, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, met with Donald Trump at the White House last week, along with GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, and judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley, to discuss the president's plans to pack the Supreme Court with reactionary ideologues.

So far they claim to be in wait-and-see mode, all having raised doubts about whether they would vote for a nominee with a record of opposition to Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act.

But talk is cheap: Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp all crossed the aisle last year to support Rightist blowhard now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, as terrible an appointment as anyone Trump is likely to unearth.

The Democrats have the power to shut down the Senate until they get a satisfactory compromise nominee or the election happens, whichever comes first. Or, for that matter, to achieve any other goal they're serious about (DACA, say).

For Democrats, unfortunately, being able to do something and doing something are two very different matters.

Or: they could hold out for changes to the terms of judges. The primary argument for lifetime appointments, judicial independence, a horse that escaped from the barn years ago, is as well served by single terms longer than a president's two. If justices were limited to 12-year appointments, say, they would still be independent, but you would no longer have the incumbent party trying to control the judiciary decades after it has left office.

An interesting sidebar is what should happen to the terms of justices currently ensconced on the court that exceed the new limit, especially since removing them simultaneously would require also that several new judges be appointed at once. But in politics everything is negotiable. There is nothing impractical in working out a formula to dispose of the longest-serving justices (who are Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito, the latter, conveniently, having been there 12 years) if their removal supported the intention of the reform.

With the promise of more turnover, any single appointment would be less fraught. The Democrats would lose the opportunity to influence this court seat, but by forcing a change to termed justices they might make future appointments less contentious for being less momentous.

Extra credit:
✓ If Democrats refuse to participate in roll call votes, the Senate will come to a halt for lack of a quorum: How Democrats can shut down the Senate by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ Quorum-breaking can be very disruptive but does not provide a long-term option for blocking a Supreme Court nomination: How Democrats can shut down the Senate, part II by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ How can someone who calls herself pro-choice oppose Roe v. Wade? Let me count the ways: Let Roe go by Megan McArdle (Washington Post).
✓ “Massive numbers of women resisted the law” -- a historian on life before Roe: The secret lives of women before Roe v. Wade by Rickie Solinger (Vox).
✓ A testy exchange with Dianne Feinstein helped make a former Notre Dame law professor a favorite of conservatives: How Amy Coney Barrett vaulted onto Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist by Eliana Johnson (Politico).
✓ Humans are living longer. That means judges are serving longer, too: It’s Time to Retire Lifetime Appointments for Supreme Court Justices by Adrienne LaFrance (Slate).