The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Senate Democrats "Virtually Certain" to Pass "Supreme Court Reform" Bill By Majority Vote in 2025
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on what Democrats plan on enacting with control of Congress and the White House.
The Dispatch reports that congressional Democrats are making plans to "reform" the Supreme Court and counteract recent abortion and voting rights decisions should they obtain unified control of Congress while retaining the White House. This is according to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who appeared on a panel last Thursday during the Democratic convention where he addressed these issues.
If Democrats capture the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, Whitehouse said, Senate Democrats would be "virtually certain" to pass a "Supreme Court reform" bill by a simple majority, evading the current 60-vote requirement for legislation. The senator said Democrats would tie their Supreme Court legislation—imposing 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and establishing ethics and recusal rules—to an omnibus package that would include a bill creating a national right to abortion and other top Democratic priorities.
"To get around the filibuster, we're going to have to have a process that allows very substantial debate from the Senate minority," Whitehouse said at an event hosted in Chicago by the Brennan Center for Justice. "We are not going to want to give the Republicans multiple stalls, multiple filibusters on this, so the bill that gets around the filibuster will be virtually certain to include permanent reproductive rights, permanent restored voting rights, getting rid of corrupting billionaire dark money, and Supreme Court reform. If you've got a bill like that moving, that's going to have spectacular tailwinds behind it." . . . .
While Vice President Harris has not publicly endorsed this plan, the Biden-Harris administration has endorsed the broad strokes of such reforms, including term limits for justices. This apparently leads Senator Whitehouse to conclude that a Harris-Walz administration would support his plan.
Whitehouse told Dispatch Politics on Thursday that he expects Harris will support legislation to enact Supreme Court term limits. "They have not gone so far as to say, 'We endorse your bill.' They have said that your bills are precisely aligned with what we are talking about," he said when asked if he had received any formal indication from Harris's campaign that the vice president supports his term-limit legislation. . . .
Whitehouse's Supreme Court term limits bill in its current form requires an intervening presidential election before taking effect, but the senator was noncommittal when asked if that's an essential piece of the legislation. "Everything is subject to the will of the Senate and the House and the input from the president as we do these things," Whitehouse told Dispatch Politics. "The point of that is that we want to make it seem a little bit less like it's an immediate targeting" of Supreme Court justices.
While this would be a big change, Rep. Raskin's remarks suggested that convention organizers did not want to make court reform a major theme, perhaps for fear of alienating moderates.
When the moderator at Thursday's Supreme Court panel asked why there had been so little talk of court reform from speakers at the Democratic convention, Raskin said that he submitted a 5,000-word speech to convention organizers, mostly focused on the Supreme Court, but was asked to cut it down to 500 words. "There was a half sentence where I described them as the kangaroo Supreme Court, and I got that in, but that was all I could get," Raskin said.
Separately, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has indicated that a change to current filibuster rules is at the top of his agenda. He previously supported passing voting rights legislation by a majority vote and has indicated a willingness to consider avoiding the filibuster for abortion rights legislation as well.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good lord, these morons must think they'll never again be the minority party. How can they possibly be so short-sighted?
You’re not familiar with game theory, particularly the prisoner’s dilemma. The best strategy, once someone has screwed you over as happened with Merrick Garland followed by Amy Barrett, is to engage in tit for tat.
Yes, the Democrats will again be in the minority someday. And when it happens, the Republicans will know that payback is a bitch. The GOP is hardly in a position to complain about institutional norms not being followed.
Doesn't tit-for-tat result in never-ending screwing each other? But, that is the Nash equilibrium in a single-iteration prisoner's dilemma game.
Suppose the Democrats don’t do tit for tat. Someday they will be in the minority again, and do you think Republicans wo t then continue to screw them over just because they took the high road?
Of course not. Republicans will stop screwing over when there are real world consequences for doing so. Not before.
The Republicans just suffered reprisal for their endless investigations into Clinton and impeachment.
Neither side is interested in tit for tat. This comports not with naive, wide-eyed pushing of political philosophy, but corruption and gaining power in the moment.
A decade or two down the road, when it comes back to bite you, with any luck you are rich and possibly retired. That’s their problem.
Of course the GOP will screw them, which means it is an endless cycle of each screwing over the other. That's how prisoner's dilemma works (I think).
"do you think Republicans wo t then continue to screw them over just because they took the high road?"
No, because the Republicans are cowards and never do it. The Dems always increase the ratchet, the GOP just matches.
If the Dems stop ratching, the GOP won't.
It should be added that the tit-for-tat strategy is greatly enhanced by including an element of forgiveness.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201607/the-prisoner-s-dilemma-and-the-virtues-tit-tat
Amy Barret was the tit, the tat being the killing of the filibuster for other nominees.
As for Garland, not confirming a nominee doesn’t violate any norms. The Dem’s declined to confirm many nominees.
And if the repubs get the trifecta, they should pass a bill, effective in a year, expanding the number to thirty. And propose nominating people like Judge Jeannie Pirro, Laura Inghram, etc.
Then they should propose a constitutional amendment fixing the number at nine.
That plan is way too clever for establishment Rethuglicans to come up with, too effective for them to endorse, and too complex for them to pull off. Congrats, you’ve won hopium bingo!
Categorically blocking any nominee broke a norm.
They didn't categorically block any nominee. They almost certainly would have confirmed Barrett, for example.
Ironically, they had more leverage to hold out for a good candidate because the Dems kneecapped their own ability to threaten a filibuster once the presidency changed hands.
McConnell said no nominee would be approved. Would he haved changed his mind, without the least sense of shame, had Barrett been nominated? Of course. But, that still breaks the norm of categorically refusing any nominee that the President would have any chance in hell of puttting forth.
De facto, there was no filibuster of SCOTUS nominees (see for example, the final votes on Thomas and Alito).
"But, that still breaks the norm of categorically refusing any nominee that the President would have any chance in hell of putting forth."
Again, not a norm. It's a practical consequence of having a filibuster. It doesn't make sense to hold off confirming a judge until your guy gets elected if the other side can just filibuster your nominees. And Reed blew that up.
It broke a norm because it had never happened before. And again, de facto there was no filbuster of SCOTUS nominees.
In the 1800s, Democrats refused to vote on SCOTUS nominees because there was an election coming up, and they wanted a Democrat President to fill those seats. And this is known because it was publicly stated at the time. 1852, well documented and available to anyone that actually wants to know something about this topic, especially people incorrectly saying "it had never happened before". Also, it happened in 1844 and 1866 as well.
Not even getting a Senate vote is the most common way for a nominee to fail to make it to the Court.
In both 1844 and 1852, the nominations were not acted upon by the Senate. I'm not sure if there was a categorical rejection of all nominees. But even assuming there was, I would not hang my hat on concluding there wasn't a norm by 2016 after more than 150 years of precedent.
in 1852, the Democrats explicitly stated they would not accept any nomination, because they wanted to preserve the empty seat for their candidate. It was reported in newspapers and was an election issue.
I'm not sure how you can get a more "categorical rejection" than refusing to consider any nominees.
And it's a long move of your goalposts from "it had never happened before" to "sure, it has happened several times, but not sufficiently recently to my party". Just accept that you were wrong, you didn't know you were, but now you do - rather than digging yourself deeper trying to hold to your mistaken claim.
I will just revise my remarks. Assuming only for the sake of argument there was a categorical rejection in 1844 and 1852, it broke a 150+ year old norm.
"And again, de facto there was no filibuster of SCOTUS nominees."
De jure, there was the potential for filibuster if one party tried to run out the clock, which made such a strategy less attractive. Reed decided to blow up the filibuster and live with the consequences of making such a strategy more attractive.
Consequences schmansequences, amirite?
You are wrong. Had a filibuster been attempted, McConnell would have ended it (sticking with the de facto norm) with or without Reid's earlier actions on appelate judges. It's what McConnell does (hardball politics).
The Republicans could reverse the court decisions on gay marriage and perhaps the exclusionary rule. Extend the 18 year term limit to ALL Federal judges, mandate Photo ID for Federal elections, and eliminate birthright citizenship. Perhaps even introduce an English-only mandate for all governmental business.
Heck, even mandate the reading of the King James Bible in all K-12 classrooms.
This is where reversing SCOTUS decisions with a runaway legislature leads to and the Dems are stupid not to realize this.
They do realize it. I keep saying this: When you've turned the Court into a rubber stamp, the first thing you use your stamp on is entrenchment legislation to make sure you don't lose the next election!
If the Democrats do pack the Court, they're not going to stop with abortion and gun control, they'll rig everything so that Republicans never get their turn again.
Packing the Court is pulling the emergency stop cord on Erdogan's tram: The next step is getting off the train.
Entrenchment legislation is exactly what Democrats had in mind with their "voting reform" legislation, which was the most recent time Democrats seriously contemplated going nuclear a couple of years ago.
Conversely, what Republicans like John Roberts had in mind was rigging elections through the restrictive laws that gutting the Voting Rights Act permitted. With rubber stamps from the current Republican controlled partisan court, we don't have to speculate about what they might do, since they've been doing it for more than a decade now.
You DO realize that all the Court did to the voting rights act was return the states that were in pre-clearance due to things they'd done many decades ago to the same status as normal states, right? By refusing to update the pre-clearance list, Congress had effectively converted it into a bill of attainder against covered states. Literally nobody who was responsible for the former wrongs was still in office, but the states were perpetually assigned the status of second class states.
New York, for example, was routinely getting away with having voting laws more restrictive than the states in pre-clearnace were allowed to enact. NC, for instance, was not permitted to reduce it's long period of early voting to a bit shorter, while NY was free to not have early voting AT ALL.
Now these states are back to enjoying the full degree of sovereignty a state normally exercises, that's all.
The Supreme Court substituted its own judgement for that of Congress in deciding what laws should be in place. You know, activist judges legislating from the bench. The states that needed preclearance before promptly took to restricting voting, same as they used to.
Republicans knew that too. Didn't hold them back regarding three Supreme Court justices.
Also, the sensible thing was for a few more senators to convict Trump. You had people with no plans to run for re-election or had no real fear of losing if they did not do so.
Instead, in a short-sighted fashion they did not. So it goes.
It's a question of cost/benefit. Also, a lot of these things are popular. If Republicans want to regain power, see PPACA, they can't run against it all.
Nonsense.
When democrats first proposed ending the filibuster for judicial nominees, the republicans said they would do it for SCOTUS.
That is 100% the fault of Dems.
That cites 1/2 of one confirmation process. Not much nonsense.
Reid started the ball rolling with the elimination of the filibuster for confirmations except for SCOTUS seats. The end result was inevitable and I'm sure Reid knew that - he just betting that Democrats were so popular that it would happen after he was dead. He bet wrong so he had to watch the consequences of his actions.
In war, no intelligent combatant just goes for "even" when attacked, they respond with that and more - and in this case it was sitting on an open SCOTUS seat until a suitable nominee was put forth by a President of the same party. Revenge is best served with a cherry on top.
He didn’t “bet wrong” — he knew that ending confirmation filibusters would help both sides.
Republicans were abusing the privilege, including using it to try to block the filling of any vacancy in the D.C. Circuit and to change major legislation. Democrats knew filibustering was of limited benefit & wanted the power to confirm the people Obama chose.
Leaving the seat open was not some expected act of "revenge." It was a raw statement of power to bet on Trump winning so they would get a seat of their own.
Republicans were not satisfied with the ability to have their nominees confirmed without a filibuster. Removing it for SCOTUS would have been fair. Kavanaugh was also not a fair "revenge" move.
Republicans don't get to do one-sided hardball.
Which is why they should prosecute the Bidens.
They are prosecuting Hunter Biden, and they would prosecute Joe Biden immediately if they could just find something that would hold together for five minutes.
Stringing up trannies on the town common would be POPULAR -- it doesn't mean that it would be RIGHT and there used to be lines that neither side would cross.
Only popular with vile people like Dr. Ed 2. Even Pat Robertson was more tolerant than that.
So the only sensible thing is for you to always get your way, facts be damned, got it you commie POS.
Didn’t hold them back regarding three Supreme Court justices.
Robert Bork sends his regards.
1. This is one promise from one Senator. Another Representative seems to be going the other way.
2. This is advocacy aimed at keeping the House and Senate more than an actual policy plan.
3. If the Supreme Court holds term limits for themselves unconstitutional, end of the issue, absent a Constitutional Amendment.
But assuming all this is a real promise and an actual plan, it's not really complex game theory, it's just 2 things.
1) First mover advantage. You shake up the status quo, you get first dibs on the new shape. Next guys come after you won't get as much benefit doing the same thing, and will probably get more pushback since folks know the move now.
2) GOP minimalism. There is not much off the table for them based on their plans should they take power again so holding back in the hopes you don't make them insane...
None of this means the specific reforms will be a good idea, (I like ethics rules, long term limits, no change to the number), only to address your tactical point.
The first mover here was FDR. Everybody has known about Court packing for most of a century now. And this is just a particularly baroque Court packing scheme.
Straightforward Court packing, while it is a bit in your face and lacks deniability, at least has the virtue of being unambiguously constitutional. This scheme has obvious constitutional defects.
Of course, if you're itching for a straight up fight with the Court, planning on putting them in what you think is their place, that's actually a virtue.
This comment is not a relevant response to what I wrote.
You are doing som morality blame thing.
Been over that ground a lot.
"Good lord, these morons must think they’ll never again be the minority party."
Not exactly. They intend that they'll never again be the minority party. They've been pretty open for a while now about intending to turn America into a one party state.
No one else thinks this. So it can’t be that open!
You know, this whole, "You're not allowed to notice what we say until we've already done it!" theme is kind of lame. Why don't you just drop it?
I'm sorry you're out of patience with people calling you on your confident paranoia.
No one else thinks this. Not even the MAGA crowd around here.
Merited impossibility.
First this:
"No one thinks it'll happen! You're a wacko for thinking about this conspiracy theory!"
Becomes:
"You deserved whatever we just did."
It's not Democrats telling their supporters this is the last time they'll have to vote. (For that matter, Trump has repeatedly said he doesn't need votes. Hmm, why would that be?)
It's about damn time!
Mitch McConnell and the black robed wardheelers he shepherded into office have overreached at every turn since Satan called Justice Scalia home in February 2016.
I can almost picture you drooling as you write that. Do all democrats suffer from a mental illness? I only ask because I’ve never met one that isn’t deranged. And power hungry of course.
And there we have it. NG is a frothing at the mouth lunatic, no better than Misek. You're a piece of shit, and you need some professional help.
You love to declare outrage and then tone police and then have like the angriest rage filled takes yourself.
And then never return to the thread.
Damn....shades of Thomas Hindman = Mitch McConnell and the black robed wardheelers he shepherded into office have overreached at every turn since Satan called Justice Scalia home in February 2016.
You revealed a little too much about yourself there.
As confidence in our political institutions wane (with some help here from ng), could it be that war will be the only truly demonstrative way to reconcile our differences?
Term limits on the Supreme Court can not be imposed by mere statute.
The abortion bill– which some lower court judge might deem unconstitutional as ultra vires — is rather obvious.
It’s a basic part of the Democrats’ platform. Ditto a voting rights bill, which has clear constitutional authority as a general matter.
Without Manchin and Sinema, a filibuster workaround is quite possible. As with changing the rule for appointments, it would be appropriate given the overall situation.
As to Supreme Court reform, yes that is quite sensible. A majority of the population supports Supreme Court reform. No scare quotes. This includes many Republicans depending on the specifics. A supermajority, actually, for what it is worth.
An ethics bill should be something BOTH parties support. Leading Republicans already did (e.g., an inspector general) in the past. But, then, they once said Garland was a fine nominee for SCOTUS too, when he wasn’t actually one.
As to term limits, let’s see how far a trifecta would go on that question. If it required nearly every single senator, do you think a bill now put forth by Sheldon Whitehouse would not be a likely choice? That would require another presidential election.
So, it would be in place in 2029. Radical! Putting aside possible judicial review.
I think it’s time to revisit Raich v. Ashcroft. And I think that while, under an expansive but still rationally legitimate interpretation of interstate commerce, Congress has significant ability to facilitate abortion, it can’t simply override state law prohibiting it.
Do you think Congress can override state law which permits abortion?
I don’t think the Conmerce Clause permits Congress to regulate abortion directly. In that respect, I agree with Thomas’ concurrence in Cahart. But it could, for example, prohibit interstate commerce in abortifacients the same way and to the same extent it can prohibit interstate commerce in cocaine or explosives. Under current precedent that means simple posessession. But even under a somewhat narrower, pre-Raich reading of the Commerce Clause it could prohibit distributoon or manufacturing for purposes of distribution.
It could do a number of other things as well to hinder abortion without regulating it directly.
It can similarly do a create deal to facilititate it within its powers. It could use the spending power to make abortion free, permit or set up abortion clinics within federal territorial enclaves, permit or set up floating abortion clinics on navigable rivers, etc. etc. etc.
All Thomas said was the Commerce Clause question was not presented. He gave no opinion on the merits.
The problem I have with your doctrine is it gives Congress greater power to restrict abortion than to promote it. Congress can prohibit the distribution and manufacturing (and perhaps the possession) of abortifacients. But, there is no analog in the other direction. The best Congress can do, as you noted, is to use its spending power (withhold some funding in states that outlaw abortion, consistent with NFIB), which it can do in both directions.
Manchin is being replaced by a Republican. How does that help?
Manchin and Sinema (likely replaced with a Democrat) are the two Democrats who refuse to alter the filibuster by a simple majority.
If Democrats retain a majority, without them, there is a better chance to change the rules.
A majority of the population would support limits on lawyer's fees.
Manchin is going to lose. In order to hold the Senate, the Democrats have to sweep all the close Senate races in addition to winning the presidency. Even though they are doing well in Senate polls, I am guessing it’s at best a 10% chance.
Tester in MT is in deep trouble.
Apparently MD is also very close.
Absent the Team D candidate stepping on their dick, MD will be deep blue.
Hogan (R) is the very popular never-Trump governor. He has been behind by single digits in most polls, but the latest (from AARP) has the race tied.
This seems quite bad.
What is the argument proponents use to claim that term limits enacted by Congress are constitutional?
What is the substance of the bill? Is it incentive based? Are they offering Justices a billion dollar bonus if they agree to retire at the right time? That might actually be constitutional. Or are they legislatively defining “Justice” as a position that hears all cases for the first 18 years and then acts only as Circuit Justice or something and nothing else after that? That I think would not be comstitutional.
It’s Jack Balkin’s idea.
> The most senior Justice, Clarence Thomas, would no longer regularly be on the appellate en banc panel as soon as the Senate confirmed the first new appointment.
Ah, the racism-first, reform-later plan. Should have known.
Surprisingly, policy-wise I'd be fine with this plan, if current justices were grandfathered in: If for purposes of panel selection current justices (as of the effective date of the new rules) were considered junior to any justices appointed under the new rules, until they retire.
racism-first
The same rules apply no matter the race of the justice.
If Thomas retired tomorrow, Roberts would be the next to go.
Are purposely being troll-y?
"It's Jack Balkin's idea."
Balkin: " Congress creates two en banc courts:"
The first words of Article III: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..."
Hm, one. Two. I see a problem here, right off the bat.
Of course, Balkin is a 'living originalist', which is to say, no sort of originalist at all. He's not troubled by little things like the explicit text of the Constitution ruling something out, so it was fairly predictable that he'd gloss over a minor issue like this.
The counter argument is there is one supreme court and the two en banc courts are an exercise of Congress's power to regulate appelate jurisdiction.
And it's still just sophistry. You're splitting the Supreme court into two Supreme courts.
Constitutional sophistry is Balkin's gig, of course, so that's not going to bother him. But it should bother people who actually ARE trying to comply with the Constitution.
Whitehouse's bill:
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-booker-blumenthal-padilla-introduce-new-supreme-court-term-limits-bill/
The Final Report of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court cited multiple possible approaches.
Women’s Health Protection Act of 2023
[49 co-sponsors]
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/701/text
Good! Make it an absolute requirement that SCOTUS justices obtain or earn no income other than their salaries, in any way or on any pretext whatsoever. No gifts, no lecturing-fees, no royalties, no entrepreneurial activity, nothing. Your salary which you get for being a justice shall be your total income, so long as you remain on the bench. Oh, and no income at all for any other member of your family - the same restrictions should apply to your spouse, parents, in-laws, and children.
L. Frank Baum:
"Oh, and no income at all for any other member of your family – the same restrictions should apply to your spouse, parents, in-laws, and children."
And you started out so reasonably, too. Well, sort of reasonably, anyway. Then you saw that cliff, and just had to jump over it...
Can we get “no other income for them or their families” for Congress and the Senate, as well? Put them on a retirement plan when they leave, too, and forbid other income after as well, to prevent delayed payouts.
I'm all for that, but this is a separate issue. Combining the two is a recipe for paralysis in both.
So, everybody who's even related you you has to move all assets into non-interest bearing accounts, and quit any jobs they might have, and mooch off you? Your children can't be employed? Your in-laws have to give up their pensions?
Seriously, this proposal is stark raving, if you stop for even a moment to analyze it.
This amounts to a financial bill of attainder against everybody related to a Justice by blood or marriage.
It is certainly reasonable to tell the Justices: "You accepted a full time job, treat it as such." But the Justices' relatives have rights, you know.
Congress, undeniably having the authority to set rules for Congress, should start by applying those very rules to themselves.
Let us see how well that works before we try, possibly unconstitutionally, having one branch of government attempt to impose its will on another branch of government.
The Founders explicitly separated the powers exercised by the three branches of government such that no one branch could limit the powers of nor dictate the internal conduct of any other.
What you are proposing would cause an immediate Constitutional crisis. Proposals that require us to toss regular order out the window as a start just don't deserve our attention, in my opinion.
Creating a Constitutional crisis is rather the point: Like I said above, they're spoiling for a fight with the Court, and plan to put the Court in its place: A tame rubber stamp for the Democratic party.
What happens when the court rules legislation changing or "reforming" the court an unconstitutional restriction on a co-equal branch of government?
Let congress and the administrative branch set similar rules for themselves first.
You think the left cares about separation of powers or preserving our way of government?
They only care about "norms."
What makes you think we have three co-equal branches of government?
It was one half of the bread in the senator sandwich that started blocking confirmation of nominees of the president of the Republican party and Joe Biden who happily continued the practice. Orrin Hatch had to retire before Republican senators took up the practice. Prior to the nomination of eminently qualified Robert Bork the only time a nominee was rejected it was bipartisan because the nominee had sketchy background.
Congressional Democrats stating their legislative priorities if they have the majorities in both houses of Congress is just campaign BS, reforming SCOTUS & federal law re. reproductive freedom. Just an exercise in virtue signalling to their base. There is NFW! that they will have a minimum of 2/3rd's of each house to pass two amendments to the Constitution. As for the SCOTUS changes the Constitution is very explicit re. term of federal judges and who has the power to set ethic rules for SCOTUS associate justices therefore Article V must be followed to change these rules. In the case of federal laws re. reproductive freedom Hobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. repudiated Roe & Casey finding a right to privacy in the penumbras & emanations in the Constitution; therefore, the 10th Amendment applies. I.E. "Powers not delegated to the United States ..... nor prohibited to it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Any federal right to choose abortion is only a suggestion for the states to follow, see Prinz v. US. Even if the Dems can get 2/3's of each chamber to pass them there is way less than 38 state legislatures that would ratify either of them
Sure they can.
1. Eliminate the conservatives from the court via the new "code of conduct."
2. Pack it with living constitutionalists.
No longer restrained by that pesky constitution!
" There is NFW! that they will have a minimum of 2/3rd’s of each house to pass two amendments to the Constitution.
A quorum to conduct business is 50% plus one member, so you can, theoretically, pass an amendment out of Congress with 34 Senators and 145 Representatives, if you just arrange to hold the vote when almost half the members are absent. There's "NFW!" the Democrats won't have that many seats. So they could, in theory, if they wanted to commit to the political equivalent of global nuclear war, originate the amendments.
That wouldn't get them ratified, though, so there's be no point in doing it.
But, as Variant notes, if the pack the Court, they don't NEED amendments, and the states' power to refuse to ratify them becomes irrelevant.