Note: If you find my posts too long or too dense to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making and the most important information I’m sharing.

My previous post on computer hacking and cyberwarfare began my overview of New York Times cybersecurity reporter Nicole Perlroth’s book, This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends. [1] My post summarized the book’s information on the scale of computer hacking, cybercrime, and cyberwarfare, while also outlining two examples from the book:

  • The 2017 worldwide ransomware attack by North Korea using a Microsoft Windows vulnerability stolen from the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), and
  • The 2009 cyberwarfare attack by the NSA on Iran’s uranium enrichment plant.

This post provides an overview of the book’s reporting on:

  • Electronic surveillance in the U.S. and the use of encryption technology to protect privacy, and
  • Leaks from the NSA, including of its cyberwarfare tools.

After the September 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. greatly expanded its electronic surveillance within the U.S. In 2013, Edward Snowden, a consultant for the NSA and a former CIA employee, released thousands of classified NSA documents. They described activities the NSA was engaged in, including mass surveillance of Americans. Among many other things, the documents revealed that the NSA was secretly surveilling users of Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and Yahoo and that in a single day it had collected roughly 445,000 Yahoo email address books, 105,000 from Hotmail, 83,000 from Facebook, 34,000 from Gmail, and 23,000 from other providers.

Snowden was charged with espionage. He left the country prior to releasing the NSA documents and is living in Russia under a grant of asylum. In 2020, a U.S. federal court ruled that the NSA’s mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal and possibly unconstitutional.

As a response to U.S. government surveillance and cyber hacking, software and hardware providers started offering users’ the ability to encrypt their data. Initially, intelligence agencies and law enforcement had ways to overcome the encryption and access the data, typically with the assistance of the product’s provider. Then in 2014, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, Apple announced that the iPhone 6 would automatically encrypt everything on the phone using the phone user’s unique password, making the data impossible to unencrypt by anyone else. Previously, Apple had a key that could unencrypt a user’s data when requested by law enforcement. The FBI and those running government surveillance programs were upset and concerned about this truly secure encryption, but there was strong support from users because they valued their privacy.

A year later, two terrorists, who had sworn allegiance to ISIS, shot and killed 14 people and injured 22 at the San Bernadino, CA, health department. The terrorists fled and were killed in a shootout within hours. One piece of evidence recovered was an encrypted iPhone. The FBI demanded that Apple unencrypt the phone, which apparently it could not, and also demanded that Apple change its software to allow the FBI to unencrypt data in the future. Apple refused, pointing out that if there was such a capability others would want access to it too and that hackers would be able to find it as well.

The FBI initiated a court case to force Apple to allow it access to iPhone data, but four months after the shooting it abruptly dropped the case. It turned out that an unidentified hacker had sold the FBI a way to overcome the encryption. Surprisingly, the FBI Director, Comey, admitted that it had paid the hacker at least $1.3 million for this capability. This was the first time the U.S. government had admitted to paying a hacker a large sum to give it access to a vulnerability in a widely used electronic device or piece of software. The FBI claimed that it did not know what the underlying flaw was and that it had no intention of letting Apple know so it could fix it.

Apple was correct, of course, in stating that any ability of the FBI or U.S. intelligence agencies to circumvent the encryption of users’ data would eventually be available to others, including those with less scrupulous intentions (assuming you believe U.S. intelligence agencies and the FBI always have scrupulous intentions). International adversaries and individual computer hackers are constantly uncovering computer software and hardware vulnerabilities. They use or sell these vulnerabilities to obtain unauthorized access to data, for use in international cyberwarfare, or for use for private gain through theft of money, trade secrets, or other valuable information. These computer vulnerabilities can also be used in ransomware attacks, where computer systems are disabled or data stolen for nefarious use unless a ransom is paid.

Probably the worst piece of news for the U.S. intelligence agencies in the history of cyberwarfare was the leak of the NSA’s tools and techniques in 2016 and 2017. While Snowden’s leaks revealed what the NSA was doing, these leaks revealed, in detail, specifically how it was doing its cyber espionage and cyberwarfare.

Over a nine-month period, an unknown individual or individuals leaked specific software vulnerabilities and the computer code the NSA was using to exploit them. These NSA hacking tools had been stolen and were now being released publicly on the Internet, sharing the world’s most powerful cyber arsenal with anyone and everyone who might want to use it. These NSA cyber weapons were used, for example, by North Korea in its global ransomware attack (described in my previous post) and by Russia in its devastating attack on the Ukraine in 2017 (to be described in my next post).

The leak of the NSA’s cyber weapons exposed what was probably the biggest federal program the public had never heard of, a cyber espionage and warfare effort so classified it was invisible: hidden through blacked out budgets, large cash transactions, shell companies, contractors, and nondisclosure agreements required of everyone involved in it.

In subsequent posts, I will outline the Perlroth book’s reporting on:

  • Russia’s cyberattacks on Ukraine,
  • The Chinese attack on Google and Google’s response,
  • The cyberattacks on U.S. elections and the Trump administration’s response, and
  • What can be done to counter cybercrime and warfare at the individual and governmental levels.

[1]      Perlroth, N. This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends. Bloomsbury Publishing, NY, NY. 2021.



Note: If you find my posts too long or too dense to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making and the most important information I’m sharing.

The lines between computer hacking, cybercrime, and cyberwarfare are blurry. They are threats to our national security and also to you. At risk is not only your financial welfare and identity, but also your health and well-being. Cyberwarfare is at a level of threat that has similarities to nuclear weapons in that it can inflict major societal harm and is restrained or deterred only by the threat of retaliatory harm and damage, similar to the mutual assured destruction that deters nuclear war.

This is not an exaggeration, as the book by New York Times cybersecurity reporter, Nicole Perlroth, This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends, [1] makes clear in great detail. She presents the development and evolution of cyber hacking, crime, and warfare since she began reporting on it for the Times in 2013. She also puts it in an historical context of espionage going back to the Cold War and the 1950s and then outlines its transition from human agents to cyber capabilities over the last 40 years. I encourage you to read her 406-page, revealing, convincing, and downright scary book if you are so motivated. I will attempt to summarize it in this and subsequent blog posts.

The scale of computer hacking, cybercrime, and cyberwarfare is much greater than I had any idea it was. The costs to individuals, businesses, governments, and other organizations (such as hospitals) are enormous. A 2018 RAND Corporation report, the most comprehensive study of cyberattacks at the time, estimated that the worldwide losses for the year from cyberattacks were hundreds of billions of dollars. By comparison, the estimated cost of terrorist attacks in 2018 was just $33 billion. Some current estimates put the costs of cyberattacks at over $2 trillion a year and growing.

The number of ransomware attacks, where hackers prevent an organization from accessing its computer systems and data until a ransom is paid, more than doubled from 2019 to 2020, for example. [2] Much of this is done by cyber criminals looking to make money. However, back in May 2017, one of the cyber hacking tools stolen from the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) (more on this in a subsequent post) was put to use by North Korea in ransomware attacks all around the globe. Within 24 hours, 200,000 organizations in 150 countries were attacked. For example, nearly 50 British hospitals were incapacitated as were Russian railroads and banks, Indian airlines, Germany’s railroads, Spain’s largest telecommunications company, Japanese police, South Korean movie theaters, many gas stations and universities in China, and small electric utilities and Fed Ex in the U.S. Russia and China suffered the most, partially because vulnerable, pirated software was widely used there.

The attack used a vulnerability in Microsoft’s Windows operating system that the NSA had discovered and exploited for years. When knowledge of it was stolen from the NSA and released publicly, the NSA notified Microsoft, but, needless to say, there was not enough time to fix the vulnerability (aka bug) and get the fix onto millions of customers’ computers before the vulnerability was exploited by North Korea and others. Exacerbating the problem, many customers are not always quick to install Microsoft’s Windows updates, particularly at companies using it on computers performing critical functions where software updates must be closely managed to minimize downtime. Making matters worse, many computers, including ones controlling critical infrastructure, were running an old version of Windows that Microsoft had stopped updating three years earlier. Now, Microsoft had to go back and update this software so its users wouldn’t be held hostage by cyberattacks from North Korea or run-of-the-mill cyber criminals.

Microsoft’s President, Brad Smith, was angry; this was not the first time the NSA had put Microsoft in this position. He publicly criticized the NSA for withholding the Windows vulnerability from Microsoft and then, when it became a problem, dumping it in Microsoft’s lap to fix on short notice. At the time, this story got short shrift in the U.S. media because of all the focus on the new Trump administration and the controversies it was generating. The administration was, however, quick to identify North Korea as the culprit, in stark contrast to its failure to out Russia for its cyberattacks, including its meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. (More on this in a subsequent post.)

Initially, government-sponsored cyber hacking, with the U.S. leading the pack, was used for espionage and surveillance of foreign governments and agents. The U.S. has multiple agencies spending billions of dollars developing and using cyber hacking capabilities. It has large teams of computer experts identifying vulnerabilities in computer software. Rather than alerting companies to the vulnerabilities in their products, U.S. intelligence agencies developed the software vulnerabilities into weapons for spying on adversaries (e.g., by stealing data from their computers). This use of cyber hacking is considered defensive as it is used to protect the U.S. and not to harm others.

The U.S. government also bought software vulnerabilities from private hackers who had discovered them, sometimes paying millions of dollars for them. Private computer hackers’ uncovering and selling of software vulnerabilities is a worldwide entrepreneurial business, given that any computer-savvy individual with a computer can do this.

However, as was probably inevitable, computer hacking shifted to being used offensively, to harm adversaries, given that it has the inherent capability to disrupt computer-controlled equipment and communications. In 2008 and 2009, the U.S. government, led by the NSA, probably with Israel’s participation, successfully executed a cyberwarfare attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant. It damaged the centrifuges used to enrich uranium in order to delay Iran’s ability to generate enough, sufficiently enriched uranium to build an atomic bomb. Many experts view this attack as marking the shift of cyberwarfare from espionage and defensive uses to offensive uses.

After a cyberattack, given time, effort, and expertise, the target can almost always identify the source of the attack. So, when U.S. intelligence agencies say they “think” a cyberattack came from say Russia, they know that it came from Russia. Furthermore, they usually know what organization was behind the attack, although sometimes it can be difficult to ascertain whether it was a government-sponsored attack or private hackers physically located say in Russia (or China, Iran, or North Korea, etc.).

After the successful attack on its nuclear enrichment plant, Iran, not surprisingly, was looking for revenge. When it discovered the cyberattack, it also then had possession of the weapon – the software that had been used – and could turn it back on the attacker.

Furthermore, the weapon, as cyber weapons often do, spread itself out from the Iranian centrifuge plant over the Internet and around the globe, eventually reaching the U.S. and infecting computers at Chevron. Fortunately, because it was designed to specifically attack the Iranian centrifuges, it didn’t do a lot of damage at Chevron or at other sites it infected.

Despite this experience, the U.S. government continued to focus on its offensive cyberwarfare programs and largely ignored building cyber defenses. Surprisingly, it ignored the clear vulnerability of U.S. computers and systems to the types of attacks it was undertaking, despite the fact that the U.S. is more dependent on computers and the Internet than other countries, making the U.S. more vulnerable to a cyberattack than anyone else.

In subsequent posts, I will outline the Perlroth book’s reporting on:

  • Electronic surveillance in the U.S. and the use of encryption technology to protect privacy,
  • Leaks from the NSA, including of its cyberwarfare tools,
  • Russia’s cyberattacks on Ukraine,
  • The Chinese attack on Google and Google’s response,
  • The cyberattacks on U.S. elections and the Trump administration’s response, and
  • What can be done to counter cybercrime and warfare at the individual and governmental levels.

[1]      Perlroth, N. This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends. Bloomsbury Publishing, NY, NY. 2021.

[2]      De Vynck, G., 9/22/21, “Treasury’s fight against hackers targets crypto payments,” The Boston Globe from the Washington Post


Note: If you find my posts too long or too dense to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making and the most important information I’m sharing.

Facebook IS a serious threat to our children, our democracy, and all of us, as my previous post documented. Facebook is finally getting the attention and scrutiny it deserves, with a former insider turned whistleblower being the catalyst. Without government regulation Facebook and other social media sites will facilitate a race to the bottom driven by our basest proclivities and instincts. This will occur because there is greater profit in spurring anger, encouraging extremism and violence, promoting false information, and triggering emotional responses than there is in creating a safe place for people to have healthy relationships and to engage in civil discourse based on facts. [1] Facebook has consistently chosen profits over the health and safety of children, the sharing of factual information, and the public good, so it isn’t going to fix itself. Meaningful action by Congress will take time, so regulatory action by the executive branch is needed now. [2]

Here are possible actions that could be taken to address the problems with Facebook and its harmful behaviors: [3]

  • Require Facebook to publicly share its internal data and algorithms. This transparency would allow independent experts to analyze how its algorithms prioritize and promote content so we would know what messages they are amplifying and if they have toxic effects and bias. This would also allow monitoring of Facebook’s use of consumer data and its adherence to privacy standards. These data are also necessary to be able to design effective regulation. [4] They are also important for monitoring and ameliorating toxic effects on children and for the protection of children’s privacy – areas where Facebook does not have a good track record.
  • Break up Facebook through use of antitrust laws, forcing it to spin off Instagram, WhatsApp, and perhaps other business units, while prohibiting it from making acquisitions of other companies. (See rationale for this below.)
  • Institute a fairness or balance standard requiring Facebook to show users content with opposing views. (Prior to deregulation in the 1980s, there was a “fairness doctrine” that applied such standards to TV and radio stations.)
  • Investigate Facebook for withholding or distorting significant financial information provided to investors.
  • Require Facebook to substantially expand its efforts and meet standards for success in blocking harmful and inaccurate content (i.e., engage in effective content moderation).
  • Strengthen or pass laws regulating Facebook’s pushing of inappropriate content and inappropriate marketing on children, e.g., strengthen the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and pass the KIDS Act.
  • Make Facebook and other social media sites liable for promoting, and perhaps even for allowing users to post, hateful, threatening, violence-promoting, and other harmful content.
  • Create and invest in public Internet sites that provide news and human interaction opportunities as an alternative to Facebook. These public sites would not have profit-driven motives and, therefore, would adhere to consumer and ethical standards, as well as a commitment to serving the public good.

Regulating Facebook and other social media will not be easy and multiple iterations of regulatory steps and efforts will be needed as regulators learn what works and adjust to changes by Facebook and other social media. Given Facebook’s tremendous financial resources, its fight against efforts to control and regulate it will go on in the courts, in regulatory agencies, and in Congress for years.

Breaking up Facebook (and other huge corporations) is necessary to:

  • Reduce monopolistic power and allow the power of the marketplace and competition to rein in harmful practices on privacy, misinformation, manipulation of users, etc.
  • Reduce the almost limitless financial resources of huge corporations, which are used to overwhelm (or buy) our policymaking, regulatory, and judicial processes.
  • Reduce the massive aggregation of consumer data that allows the manipulation of users, including children.

I encourage you to pay at least some attention to the unfolding expose of how Facebook (and social media generally) works and what its effects are, because it has a significant impact on each of us and our families, as well as broad impacts on our society and democracy.

Government regulation of social media is needed to protect children, our democracy, and all of us. Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg have been skillful at ducking accountability. This must end. For example, Facebook knows of the harm it does to children and how to mitigate it, but it has chosen not to take action because it prioritizes profits over the safety of children (and everything else). Moreover, internal documents disclosed by the whistleblower reveal that in 2020 Facebook studied better ways to market products to preteens, even though it supposedly bars anyone under 13 from having an account. [5]

I encourage you to sign up for the Facebook boycott on November 10 here. Staying off of Facebook and Instagram for a day or two is probably the best way to send the message that we’re not happy with their behavior.

I also urge you to let your U.S. Representative and Senators, along with President Biden, know that you support strong regulation of Facebook (and other social media) to reduce the harm it is doing to us, our children, our society, and our democracy.

You can find contact information for your U.S. Representative at and for your U.S. Senators at

You can email President Biden via or you can call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 or the switchboard at 202-456-1414.

[1]      Hubbell, R., 10/6/21, “Today’s edition: Progress, at last” (

[2]      Verma, P., 10/8/21, “What’s next for Facebook,” The Boston Globe

[3]      Bernoff, J., 10/7/21, “Facebook must be stopped,” The Boston Globe

[4]      Ghaffary, S., 10/5/21, “Facebook’s whistleblower tells Congress how to regulate tech,” Vox (

[5]      Boston Globe Editorial Board, 10/12/21, “If Facebook won’t protect kids, Congress should force the company’s hand,” The Boston Globe


Note: If you find my posts too long or too dense to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making and the most important information I’m sharing.

This title is NOT an exaggeration: Facebook IS an existential threat to all of us, our children, and our democracy. I’ve been meaning to write a series of blog posts about Facebook and social media in general – and the harm they are doing – for almost a year. I recommend that you watch the award-winning documentary, “The Social Dilemma” (which is free on YouTube until October 31st). It’s produced by the Center for Humane Technology and was an eye-opener for me. (The documentary is 1 hour 34 minutes; there’s also a 2 ½ minute trailer.) The Center provides great resources for parents, teachers, and all of us on how to be intelligent users of social media – and how to protect our children from social media’s potential negative influences.

Facebook is finally getting the attention and scrutiny it has warranted for some time, with a former insider turned whistleblower being the catalyst. The whistleblower, Frances Haugen, had been a product manager at the Civic Integrity unit at Facebook. The unit was dissolved after the 2020 election. She subsequently left Facebook and has shared documents and her personal experiences with the Wall Street Journal, which has done a series of articles based on her information that are called The Facebook Files. She appeared on the 60 Minutes TV show on October 3, 2021. A blog post by Whitney Tilson, an investment professional, includes a series of links to segments of Haugen’s interview on 60 Minutes, links to the Wall Street Journal articles (which are behind a paywall unless you have a subscription or can access them through a library), and a letter from Tilson, as an investor, to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. [1]

I hope you’ve been following, at least at some level, the recent revelations that have laid bare the incredible influence Facebook has on us, including on what we believe and how we feel. We are both the product that Facebook is selling and the customers who are being influenced by the most sophisticated and manipulative marketing strategies and capabilities humankind has ever experienced. [2]

I provide here a very high-level overview of the information about Facebook that’s been uncovered and reported lately, while providing links to the detail. I have written previously about the intentional promotion of disinformation by Facebook, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, as current revelations are making starkly clear.

Facebook is single-handedly controlled by Mark Zuckerberg, who owns the majority of the controlling stock of the corporation. It seems clear that his commitment to generating profits (and increasing his wealth of $134 billion) outweighs everything else. Actions (e.g., likes and shares) and time on Facebook are money in his pocket and the recent revelations indicate that every time a decision was made where accuracy or any other social good was pitted against more clicks and money, Zuckerberg went for the money – despite knowing the  downsides. Facebook’s revenue has soared to $119 billion and the corporation’s market value is up to almost $1 trillion.

Facebook has internal studies and statistics that show, for example, that misinformation gets six times more clicks than factual news and that right-leaning sites produce more misinformation than any other sites. Facebook and Zuckerberg have been promoting misinformation and right-wing sites because more clicks mean more money in their pockets.

Facebook also knows how to elicit emotional responses and how its users respond to likes, shares, clicks on emoji buttons, and other actions on its site. It’s happy to use this knowledge to manipulate its users. Its internal research has concluded that its algorithms, which determine what to promote and show to whom, contribute to mental health and emotional problems among teens, particularly girls. However, it has done nothing to ameliorate this harm. [3]

Facebook seems to be immune to any sense of civic obligation to its roughly 3 billion users. It appears to have no qualms about helping undermine elections and democracies, the free and factual media, and accurate information about Covid and vaccination, which has literally deadly consequences. Zuckerberg has allowed terrorist recruitment, human trafficking, abuses by authoritarian governments, and promotion of hate, violence, genocide, and racism on Facebook. Is it any wonder that in the Russians’ efforts to disrupt U.S. elections and sow discord in our society that Facebook was their most frequently employed tool? [4] Facebook’s negative effects are probably even greater in countries other than the U.S., particularly in authoritarian ones, where the effects may be literally deadly for regime opponents.

Although the concerns that have been raised about Facebook are relevant to all of social media, Facebook is the dominant entity. Its algorithms govern the news we receive and what is promoted and prioritized, which shapes our society and affects our well-being and our democracy. Without government regulation Facebook and other social media will facilitate a race to the bottom driven by our basest proclivities and instincts. This will occur because there is greater profit in spurring anger, encouraging extremism, promoting false information, and triggering emotional responses than there is in creating a safe place for civil discourse and human interactions based on facts and healthy relationships. [5]

My next post will present some options for reining in Facebook, as well as social media in general.

[1]      Tilson, W., 10/5/21, “Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen; An open letter to Sheryl Sandberg,” (

[2]      Hubbell, R., 10/7/21, “Today’s edition: Nine months of silence,” (

[3]      Bauder, D., and Liedtke, M., 10/4/21, “Facebook fed Capitol riot, former manager alleges,” The Boston Globe from the Associate Press

[4]      Alterman, E., 10/1/21, “Altercation: The Facebook threat to democracy – and us all,” The American Prospect (

[5]      Hubbell, R., 10/6/21, “Today’s edition: Progress, at last” (


Note: If you find my posts too long or too dense to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making and the most important information I’m sharing.

The radical, reactionary decisions of the Supreme Court’s six-justice majority not only affect society (see my previous post), they have implications for our democracy and the future of the Court itself. Their decisions undermine the credibility of the Court, the rule of law, and American democracy. They mean that government will not be able to regulate businesses, protect workers, or protect people’s civil rights. They mean that our government will not be able to provide a safety net for individuals when they fall on hard times and will not be able to promote public health and infrastructure.

The way the Supreme Court is making decisions is undermining its credibility and eroding respect for it among the public. The majority of the Court’s decisions since 2017 have been on the “shadow docket,” i.e., decisions made without the benefit of written or oral arguments. These decisions are often made and released in the dead of night, and often with an unsigned written statement (aka opinion). These opinions are typically short and fail to present a rationale for the decision. They almost exclusively advance a right-wing political agenda. Prior to 2017, such emergency rulings were rare and were used for uncontroversial decisions or when time was of the essence, such as death penalty executions. In less than three years, the Trump administration filed for at least 28 such rulings (an average of almost 9 per year), while there were only eight in the previous 16 years (an average of one every other year). [1]

The Court is emasculating the rule of law and degrading American democracy. It is failing to enforce federal laws, making decisions without considering the merits of cases, and allowing states to do as they please, even when they violate the Constitution and people’s rights. As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent on the case on the Texas law limiting pregnancy terminations, “The Court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.” [2]

Justice Kagan, in her dissent on the Texas case, noted that the Court’s recent actions, “which every day becomes more unreasoned,  inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” are undermining the legitimacy of the Court. She noted, by way of example, that the Court failed to intervene to protect the rights of millions of Texas women, despite having intervened aggressively to protect alleged religious rights, such as when a California church had been prohibited from meeting in-person by Covid restrictions. Since Justice Barrett was seated in October 2020, the Court has issued seven emergency injunctions (e.g., blocking state coronavirus restrictions), while only four such injunctions had been issued during the previous 15 years of Justice Robert’s tenure. [3]

Making things even worse, the Supreme Court is treating its shadow docket decisions, promulgated without any reasoning to back them up, as creating new legal precedents that lower courts must follow. According to precedent, shadow docket cases do not establish new law, in part because the merits of the case have not been argued and considered. However, the current Court has had no problem asserting that its shadow docket decisions establish new law and legal precedents, particularly when infringements of religious rights have been alleged.

Given that the Court is ruling inconsistently, ignoring even its own recent precedents, making decisions without hearing or considering the merits of a cases, and promulgating its decisions without justifications, it is clear that the Court is advancing an ideological and partisan political agenda and not a legal one. This dramatically undermines the legitimacy of the Court and powerfully supports the case for Court reform.

In addition to the behavior of the radical, reactionary majority on the Court, the way two of the justices got on the Court also argues for reform. As you probably remember, in the spring of 2016, Senate Majority Leader McConnell (Republican of Kentucky) refused to even consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for an open seat on the Supreme Court, supposedly because it was an election year and the decision should be left to the new president. This reduced the size of the Court from nine to eight justice for roughly a year. However, when an opening occurred in September, 2020, also an election year, McConnell and the Republicans were happy to rush through the nomination of Amy Barrett, literally days before the election. So, the Republicans stole two seats on the Court and filled them with radical reactionaries.

These appointments raised issues about the appointment process and the lifetime terms of justices, given that it was the deaths of two sitting justices that led to these openings. However, there are other long-term issues with the Supreme Court. For example, there is no Code of Ethics that covers Supreme Court justices; they are exempt from the ethics rules that apply to other federal judges.

President Biden has appointed a Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States to study the issues with the Court and the need for reform. Testimony was received from a long list of people, including Harvard Law Professor Michael J. Klarman, who has written a 260-page Harvard Law Review article on the degradation of American democracy and the Supreme Court’s role in it. In his testimony to the Commission, Klarman recommends and provides a strong rationale for: [4]

  • 18-year, non-renewable, staggered terms for justices, so that a seat is filled every two years, and
  • Expanding the Court by four seats immediately.

Others have recommended adding two seats to the Court to make up for the two that were stolen by Republican shenanigans. Robert Hubbell, a retired lawyer, recommends: [5]

  • Expanding the Court, noting that this would require bypassing the filibuster,
  • Limiting the terms of justices,
  • Implementing a code of judicial ethics for the justices, and
  • Limiting the Court’s ability to decide substantive issues on the shadow docket.

I urge you to let your U.S. Representative and Senators, along with President Biden, know that you support reform of the Supreme Court to restore its legitimacy and non-partisan operation. Urge them to push for a strong, substantive report and set of recommendations from the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court to achieve these goals. Then, we will all need to work to ensure that needed changes in the Supreme Court are implemented.

You can find contact information for your U.S. Representative at and for your U.S. Senators at

You can email President Biden via or you can call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 or the switchboard at 202-456-1414.

[1]      Richardson, H. C., 9/1/21, “Letters from an American blog,” (

[2]      Sotomayor, S., 9/3/21, “Sotomayor’s defiant dissent,” The Nation (

[3]      Vladeck, S., 9/3/21, “The Supreme Court doesn’t just abuse its shadow docket. It does so inconsistently,” The Washington Post

[4]      Klarman, M. J., 7/20/21, “Court expansion and other changes to the Court’s composition,” Written statement to the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States (

[5]      Hubbell, R., 9/2/21, “Today’s Edition: Susan Collins should resign in disgrace,” (