>

Ahhh SlenderMan
don't let

What the hell do you want me to do about it? >

All we can do is vote and help the Democrats hold the presidency and the senate, so that we can confirm more progressive judges. This article's title makes it sound like there's something we can do to stop it immediately, but it will take time to heal the judicial branch after trump and mitch thoroughly fucked it. 
If you feel like doing something now, maybe make a donation to the DSCC? Not much else to be done at present, just gotta play the long game >

We're not getting "progressive" judges. We're getting a bunch Garland types. >

Not true.  It's difficult to pigeon hole most judges on the left ideologically since most judges aren't well known to the public at large but just based on things like diversity Biden is creating a far more progressive judicial branch than has ever existed before.  It's important for women and people of color to have representation on the bench and he's been doing that. >

Won’t be the first time. >

Political Judge Shopping should be a crime.  You should only be allowed to file your case in the jurisdiction that applies to you or the future defendant with the only exception being if the court recuses itself and then you should only apply to a bordering jurisdiction with yours. >

I can see the argument for "or if neither of those places are a place where the actual issue is occurring, then than location must be used." but that really should be a strict "I need to prove this is the only place to bring the case" process, not just a "it applies here."
For example, I can live on the East Coast, and the company doing a wrong is in the west coast, but the issue occurred in Minnesota due to the company allowing Minnesota police to search my packages without a warrant against their own state law (assuming there was a law there forbidding companies to do that without a warrant).  In such a weird situation, I was wronged in a state I never entered, by a company based in a completely different state that they aren't based out of.
All in all, interstate issues can be weird when corporations are involved.  But I think such an edge case should be treated as a "you need to fully explain why you need this specific location" and possibly a "And if the venue can be reasonably moved by the defendant to a more relevant location, it will be."  Although, that might enforce district shopping, just in the form of where companies set up shop. >

Certain federal courts are clearly not capable of following their own "prudential doctrines" about not taking political statement cases. 
Other than ignoring them, the solution would be to make those law rather than precedent with a long list of "courts do not have the power to hear."