Democrats are running on affordability. They claim Supreme Court reform is part of that

Somewhere a Democratic pollster found that "grocery prices" and "Supreme Court reform" test well in the same paragraph, and now House Democrats are trying to sell voters on the idea that the price of eggs and the composition of the federal judiciary are the same emergency. They are not. One is a kitchen-table problem people feel every time they check out at the store. The other is a decades-long grievance about losing cases, dressed up in fresh urgency because the Voting Rights Act ruling didn't go their way.

That's the tell here. This isn't really about affordability at all. It's about a party that keeps losing at the Supreme Court deciding the fix isn't better arguments or different laws, but a different Court. Court packing, term limits, jurisdiction stripping, whatever the flavor of the month is, it always shows up right after an unfavorable ruling, never before. Funny how that works.

Voters can smell a bait and switch. If Democrats want to run on prices, run on prices. Show up with an actual plan for energy costs or housing supply or the tariffs debate and let people judge it on the merits. Instead they're trying to smuggle in a structural attack on an independent judiciary under the same banner as cheaper groceries, hoping nobody notices the seams.

The honest version of this pitch would be "we lost on Section 2 and we're mad about it." That's a real position, even if we think it's wrong. But dressing it up as kitchen-table economics insults the voters they're trying to reach, and it tells you everything about how little confidence Democrats actually have in the affordability argument standing on its own.