I mentioned Monday that when I first heard that Sen. John Hickenlooper was facing a serious challenge in Tuesday’s primary my immediate reflex was concern, before warming to the idea. By the time the returns started coming in, I was hoping Julie Gonzales would defeat him or at least give him a much tighter scare. As I noted last night, while votes were still being counted, getting 43% of the vote against a sitting senator who has been a major presence in the state’s politics for a quarter century is nothing to sneeze at. That signals an extraordinary level of discontent. Still, the actual margin was fairly comfortable. He almost got to 60%.

Obviously, there’s a lot going on. TPM’s staff spent yesterday reporting on and analyzing the last batch of Supreme Court decisions this term. Meanwhile, we’re hurdling toward midterm elections so consequential, President Trump can’t talk about anything else but the SAVE Act or he gets sad. Progressives exceeded expectations in several key Colorado races last night, winning primaries for governor and several congressional seats.

So, we think it’s time we get together to have a chat. We’re partnering with our friend Marisa Kabas for an evening of conversation, trivia, and drinks. (Yes, trivia. new thing we’re trying out. Don’t miss it.) Get your tickets today and join us Wednesday July 29 at Crystal Lake in Brooklyn. More details here.

10:39 p.m.: Kiros now appears to be pulling ahead with Election Day votes. Currently only up five points with 73% in but this looks like it’s going to keep going in Kiros’ direction. Too early to call but the direction looks clear.

9:47 p.m.: Hickenlooper survives, various network calls. By ordinary standards it’s a healthy margin — 57%. But for someone so established in Colorado Democratic politics, Gonzales’ 43% is very impressive. Bennet looks like he’s toast but no calls yet. DeGette-Kiros still neck and neck.

9:35 p.m.: It seems like John Hickenlooper is probably going to pull through. 50% of the votes in and he’s at 58% to Julie Gonzales’ 42%. That’s a big margin. But it’s still a pretty big showing for a challenger. Sen. Michael Bennet looks to be in the process of losing by a similar margin to Phil Weiser, whose candidacy is almost all based on “fight.” Kiros-DeGette is neck-and-neck. Kiros 47% to DeGette’s 45% with about 2/3rds of the votes in. The people I talked to in Colorado broadly predicted these results. Hickenlooper survives, Bennet loses and probably DeGette too. That’s about where we are, though the DeGette race is far too close to call. I’m trying to get a read now on where remaining votes are.

From TPM Reader LD …

Decades-long reader/member, and I wanted to say that Josh’s take on Hickenlooper’s run is spot-on. I have voted for Hickenlooper (and Dianne Degette, the incumbent House member for Denver who is in a tight race as well), but I’m more than ready for those who will push for top-to-bottom reform. My husband and I actually ran into Hick in our neighborhood on Saturday night and we told him to fight the good fight. He thought we meant the primary, not the fight for our democracy.

From TPM Reader EH …

I’ve really enjoyed your recent posts (and reader emails) processing the recent New York primary elections. I strongly agree with the point you’ve emphasized that “left/right” is less salient than “fighter/non-fighter” in the current roiling within the broad left-of-center coalition. And I’d take it a step further and argue that anyone coded as “establishment” carries a strong presumption of belonging to the “non-fighter” camp. 

We’ll know these results a bit later this evening. But I wanted to share a couple emails from TPM Readers. I was struck that most or all of the emails we received on these primaries were from longtime supporters of the incumbents in danger tonight, sometimes knowing them personally. They almost uniformly want them booted.

From TPM Reader DC …

Super interested to read your thoughts on the “earthquake” of the potential that Sen. Hickenlooper could lose his primary.

I’m a longtime Denver resident. I live a block away from Sen. Hickenlooper. I have hosted fundraisers for him for Mayor and Governor. But I voted against him in the primary. I thought of it as a “protest” vote—i.e., he’s likely to win, but I need to send the message anyway that just being a Democrat with huge name recognition is not enough. 

One of the most encouraging things I have seen recently are complaints from the right, as well as what we might call the supercilious center, bewailing, whining about, or just generally objecting to adding new Justices to the Court. They’re talking because they see it coming. I’m not saying it’s a certainty. Obviously they want to forestall it. But this isn’t just something folks like me, or others, are talking about. We have their attention. We clearly have the Justices’ attention. That shows we are moving in the right direction.

I’m writing today because I want to address one of the most common and one of the best (although still insufficient) opposing arguments. That is this: if you expand the Court, won’t Republicans come right back and expand it even more? And then don’t you just have an on-going war of tit-for-tat expansions?

My short answer is, yes. And that’s okay.

Let me give you the slightly longer answer.

As you’ve seen, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of birthright citizenship by a 6 — or perhaps 5 1/2 — vote margin. See Kate Riga’s report on the majority decision and Josh Kovensky’s piece on the dissenters’ goal of doing away with birthright citizenship. I repeat my point from yesterday which is that the occasional non-corrupt decision doesn’t make the Court any less corrupt or in need of reform. In this case, in a sane world, the dissents from Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would on their own be sufficient basis for impeachment and removal from office. One might as well believe or pretend to believe that the federal senate is unconstitutional despite its being unambiguously written into the structure of the document itself. The level of abuse of power that is the basis of these dissents can only be seen as criminal in nature and grows from the culture of corruption and impunity that now reigns on the Court.

We’ve got more primaries coming up tomorrow night, specifically in the state of Colorado. I must confess that it was only in the last couple days that I realized that incumbent Senator John Hickenlooper (D), the former mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado, stands a real chance of going down to defeat. Needless to say that would be a very big deal since incumbent senators, or at least incumbent Democratic senators, all but never have that happen.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D), who is trying to become the nominee for governor, as well as Dem Rep. Diana DeGette, might also be toast. But it’s Hickenlooper who I want to focus on here. Bennet is running against State Attorney General Phil Weiser, whose politics aren’t that distinguishable from Bennet’s; he’s challenging Bennet on the “fight” front. DeGette is being challenging by Melat Kiros, a more questionable figure. But that’s the House and it’s an overwhelmingly Democratic district. Again, I want to focus on Hickenlooper because that has more properly national implications. (To get a detailed rundown of all the races in Colorado, here’s a good piece at The Downballot.)

This likely goes without saying. But I’ll say it anyway and add a few points. The occasional non-terribly ruling by the corrupt Supreme Court doesn’t reduce the necessity of reform one iota. I’m not as wound up as I might have been by the anti-constitutional and frankly absurd independent agency ruling only because it was telegraphed so long in advance. (ICYMI, the Court ruled that the president has the authority to fire civil servants, unless they work for the Federal Reserve. More from Kate Riga on that here). I call the ruling absurd only because of what I guess we need to call the as-yet-tact “sound money” doctrine which makes the Fed somehow different from every other independent agency because of the more general “because” doctrine.

What I want to note here is what is semi-taken for granted even by many who despise the Court’s corruption. And that is the way it is more or less assumed now that any law, prohibition, or imperative assumed or embraced by Democrats goes up for review by the Court as though it were some kind of Guardian Council or perhaps more aptly an upper legislative house like the House of Lords. Of course judicial review is not new. That goes back 225 years. Key pieces of New Deal legislation were overruled by the pre-Carolene Products Court. And you have the entire Lochner era in which the Court held that most of what we would now call garden-variety regulation was unconstitutional.