🏅 Top traders

@mods Please resolve

@BenjaminDarnell Please resolve.

Something to keep in mind: of the possible worlds where Democrats win the senate, most of them have Democrats winning 51 seats or 50+VP.

According to the Cook Political Report, of the 49 seats currently held by Republicans Ted Cruz and Rick Scott's seats are remotely competitive, and they're still probably going red. On the other hand, Democrats have 1 seat that's virtually guaranteed to go red, while another 3 are "tossup" or "lean R". If Democrats win the senate, it's going to be close.

@creator How do court rulings affect these? Do these resolve yes as soon as a bill is signed, or does it need to withstand a court challenge as well? What if court challenges are still ongoing at the end of the term?

Since this question is about what Democrats will do contingent on winning the presidency and both houses of congress, I'd consider either passing a bill or issuing an executive order enough to resolve, depending on the option.

Abortion is a potent culture war issue that they use for elections. What is the incentive to codify nationally?

To not lose the next election.

Ironic to see this talking point being used against the left when people said for decades the right would never overturn Roe because it was a guaranteed vote bringer.

What is the Constitutional basis to codify it nationally?

Something something interstate commerce.

@BrunoParga Less flippantly, they could argue abortion rights are part of the equal protection clausw of the 14th amendment, which Congress is authorized to enforce.

Yeah that's definitely true! I guess the right was interested in more than simply weaponizing the issue because they did overturn it. It may be interesting to see what the left does if they have the power.

Tthese prices are really high. If Dems get a trifecta they're still unlikely to have more than 50 seats and several senators are going to be eager to make themselves look like moderate mavericks because they'll be up for re-election in 2026.

Also, abolish the filibuster is only at 29%, several of these would be blocked unless they do that. Financial changes can be done under budget reconciliation, so 50 might be enough.

For context: in Trump v. Anderson, the SCOTUS decided that states cannot block candidates from election on the basis of insurrection; only Congress may do so.

Now, in countries that actually protect their Constitution, the Supreme Court would order Congress to pass such a law within a given time frame, as the Constitution cannot be left without effect due to Congressional omission; they might even decide on provisional rules themselves while Congress does not act.

But American constitutional law lacks many things we take for granted elsewhere, so...

@GG doesn't this require a constitutional amendment?

Article 3, section 1 says:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Which on my reading does imply lifetime appointments as long as they don't misbehave. I've heard it argued that you could create emeritus positions on the Supreme Court, which would allow justices to keep their same rate of pay and also serve on the lower courts from time to time if they wanted. This would allow justices to keep their "office" while stripping them of authority to rule in the highest level cases. The constitutionality of such a plan would of course be decided by....the Supreme Court.

@GG Didn't read the rules on this stuff resolving in 2027. Feel free to delete.

Since there haven't been any trades on it, I'll modify it to "Keep control of both houses after the midterms"