Why Senate control matters more than the House for Supreme Court longevity
Ron Brownstein and Bill Kristol argue that Democrats should prioritize winning the Senate, as its outcome will determine whether Justices Alito and Thomas can remain on the bench for another six years.
Veteran journalist Ron Brownstein sat down with Bill Kristol of The Bulwark to debate the strategic importance of the Senate for the Supreme Court’s composition. Both dismissed Democratic donors’ obsession with the House, arguing that Senate outcomes are pivotal because Justices Samuel Alito, 76, and Clarence Thomas, 78, are seeking to stay for another term. They highlighted that the 2028 Senate contests are largely safe for both parties, with Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson as a potential upset, and noted Democrats hold no Senate seats in states that have voted for Donald Trump in the last three elections.
The conversation referenced Alito’s statements that he intends to serve through the 2027 term and warned that a Democratic Senate could lead Republican leaders to pressure his retirement during the lame-duck session. They also pointed to a 2016 study showing most post-1970 justices retire by age 79-81, making extended service past 85, like that of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, uncommon. The analysis underscores how Senate control could shape the Court’s future beyond the 2026 election cycle.
Why it matters
Senate control will influence whether conservative justices remain, affecting U.S. law for years.
In this story
