希拉里·克林顿可能不再是民主党最有影响力的声音，但她仍是党内体制的正式成员。因此，当她表达支持扩大最高法院法官人数时，这表明曾经的激进想法已经进入主流。
Hillary Clinton may no longer be the most influential voice in the Democratic Party, but she remains a member in good standing of the party establishment. So when she expresses support for expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, it tells us that what was once a radical idea has gone mainstream.
克林顿在最近一次播客中说：“我们应该在民主党执政期间认真考虑扩大法院规模。你知道，以前每个巡回区对应一名法官。我们现在有13个巡回区，应该有13名法官。”在法院增设四名法官只是被提出的多项改革之一，旨在遏制法院的滥权。其他方案包括对法官设定18年任期限制、制定具有实际约束力的伦理规则（不再允许像托马斯大法官那样接受亿万富翁资助的豪华招待）以及限制法院推翻不喜欢的法律的权力。
“We should seriously look at expanding the court while the Democrats are in power,” Clinton said on a recent podcast. “You know, it used to be that you’d have one justice for each circuit. We now have 13 circuits, we should have 13 justices.”Adding four justices to the court is just one of the potential reforms that have been suggested as a way of curbing the court’s abuses. Others include 18-year term limits for justices, ethics rules with actual teeth (no more billionaire-funded junkets for you, Justice Thomas) and limits on the court’s ability to strike down any law they don’t like.
无论倾向哪种具体改革，民主党人已经不能仅仅谴责最新的糟糕裁决，而必须愿意考虑对该机构进行根本性变革。
Whichever particular reforms one prefers, it is no longer acceptable for a Democrat to simply decry the latest awful ruling. They have to be willing to entertain fundamental change to the institution.
这种民主党思维的转变既显著又近期。五年前，参议员埃德·马克伊提出了一项法案，正是克林顿等人如今所支持的——在法院增设四名法官；当时仅有两位共同提案人，参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦和蒂娜·史密斯。乔·拜登对法院改革的呼声作出的回应是华盛顿最常用的掩埋议题方式：他任命了一个委员会进行研究。该委员会提交了一份冗长的白皮书，但直到2024年7月——拜登退出总统竞选——他才正式支持任期限制和可执行的伦理准则。
This shift in Democrats’ thinking is as remarkable as it is recent. Five years ago, Sen. Ed Markey introduced a bill to do just what Clinton and others now favor, adding four justices to the court; it got only two co-sponsors, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Tina Smith. Joe Biden responded to demands for court reform with Washington’s favorite way of burying an issue: He appointed a commission to study it. They produced a lengthy white paper, but it wasn’t until July 2024 — he pulled out of the presidential race — that Biden finally endorsed term limits and an enforceable ethics code.
如今的局面大不相同。最高法院改革几乎肯定会成为2028年民主党平台的一部分，几乎所有考虑竞选总统的政治人物都已表态支持至少某种形式的改革。
The situation today is far different. Supreme Court reform will almost certainly be part of the 2028 Democratic platform, and just about every politician considering a presidential bid has already come out for at least some version of reform.
支持扩充大法官人数——这或许是提议改革中最激进的一项——的潜在竞选人名单很长，而且还在不断增加。名单上有卡玛拉·哈里斯、皮特·布蒂吉格、众议员罗·卡纳和众议员亚历山德拉·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯。参议员克里斯·墨菲、科里·布克和埃莉萨·斯洛特金，以及州长安迪·贝希尔都支持设立任期限制。其他潜在候选人，包括参议员拉斐尔·沃诺克和州长乔什·夏皮罗、JB·普利兹克，采取的是“一切选项都应摆上桌面”的态度，没有具体表态支持什么——这表明他们在观望选民的诉求。压力只会持续增加。
The list of potential contenders who have endorsed court expansion — perhaps the most radical of the proposed reforms — is long and getting longer. It includes Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Term limits have been endorsed by Sens. Chris Murphy, Cory Booker and Elissa Slotkin, along with Gov. Andy Beshear. Other potential candidates, including Sen. Raphael Warnock and Govs. Josh Shapiro and JB Pritzker, are taking the “everything should be on the table” approach, not saying specifically what they’re for — which suggests they’re waiting to see what the voters demand. Pressure will only keep building.
是什么发生了变化？最重要的因素是法院自身的行为。有那些具有里程碑意义的判决：推翻“罗诉韦德案”、大幅削弱《投票权法案》、取消对亿万富翁向竞选活动注资的任何实质性限制、禁止教育领域的平权行动、赋予总统因犯罪被起诉的豁免权，等等。综合来看，法院的保守派大法官多数显而易见地在推行其自身的党派政治项目：依照个人偏好重塑法律和联邦政府结构。然而，大法官们却假装只有他们真正致力于贯彻制宪者的意图和宪法文本。
What changed? The most important factor is the court’s own behavior. There are the monumental decisions: overturning Roe v. Wade, gutting the Voting Rights Act, eliminating any meaningful restrictions on billionaires pouring money into campaigns, outlawing affirmative action in education and giving the president immunity from prosecution for crimes, among other things. Taken together, the court’s conservative majority is so obviously pursuing its own partisan political project: to remake the law and the structure of the federal government in line with their personal preferences. Yet the justices pretend that they and only they are truly committed to the framers’ intentions and the text of the Constitution.
“我们不属于任何政治运动，也不试图推进任何政治议程，”法院上最具党派色彩的大法官塞缪尔·阿利托说。“人们认为我们在做政策决定，”首席大法官罗伯茨今年早些时候感叹道，而事实与此截然相反。这么说的人，正是那个引领法院向右狂奔、并实现了毕生夙愿——摧毁《投票权法案》的人。
“We are not part of any political movement, and we are not attempting to further any political agenda,” said Samuel Alito, the most partisan justice on the court. “People think we’re making policy decisions,” lamented Chief Justice Roberts earlier this year, when nothing could be further from the truth. So says the man who has steered the court’s stampede to the right, including achieving his lifelong goal of destroying the Voting Rights Act.
即使是自由派大法官中最为温和的埃琳娜·卡根，也在最近的一次演讲中表示，法院对党派选区划分的判决相当于“盖章批准”，显示出“缺乏应有的关切或对其判决后果的理解”。恕我直言，卡根弄错了：他们非常清楚自己判决的后果是什么。这正是他们如此判决的原因。
Even Elena Kagan, the most conciliatory of the liberal justices, said in a recent speech that the court’s decisions rubber-stamping partisan gerrymandering showed “a lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions.”With all due respect, Kagan was mistaken: They know exactly what the consequences of their decisions are. That’s why they rule the way they do.
因此，多亏了保守派大法官，民主党正在就法院改革达成共识。党内不存在左派与中间派在法院判决是否制造了危机这一问题上的分歧。唯一的问题是该如何应对这场危机。任何想要领导该党的人，都必须愿意直面这座法院、重新平衡天平。如果他们不这么做，选民不会答应。
So thanks to the conservative justices, Democrats are moving toward a consensus on court reform. There is no left versus center division within the party on whether the court’s decisions have or haven’t created a crisis. The only question is what should be done about that crisis. Anyone wanting to lead the party is going to have to be willing to take on this court and rebalance the scales. If they don’t, their constituents won’t stand for it.