Supreme Court Gambit Sh
Graham Platner’s ascent turns a sleepy Senate race into a referendum on how far democracy can bend before it breaks.
He doesn’t talk about “rebalancing” or “reforms.”
He talks about subpoenas, term limits, and stripping the Court of jurisdiction on abortion and voting rights.
He names justices onstage. He calls their decisions “attacks,” not opinions.
For a state raised on careful understatement, it feels like a moral siren or a political explosion, depending on where you’re standing.
Susan Collins offers the old bargain: stability, decorum, incremental nudges.
Platner offers something closer to rupture.
If he wins, his victory will be read as permission for Democrats to stop pretending the Court is neutral—and to wield raw power in response.
If he loses, party leaders will cling to it as proof that Americans still fear the cure more than the disease, even as the ground trembles beneath them.
