In a now predictable pattern, Democrats are once again calling to pack the Supreme Court with liberal partisans following a few rulings that didn’t go their way. While most of the corporate media has treated this shocking attack on judicial independence with barely a shrug, Americans should view Democrats’ rhetoric as an existential threat to constitutional order.
During a call with a left-wing nonprofit last week, former Vice President Kamala Harris – who is also the frontrunner for the Democrat nomination in 2028 – outlined a string of astonishingly radical policies that she said should be on the table, including adding Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states and abolishing the Electoral College. But the idea that seems to be getting the most traction on the left is expanding the Supreme Court to add more liberal justices.
“Let’s invite ideas, for example, that are about Supreme Court reform, including the notion of expanding the court,” Harris said.
Democrats have a long history of court packing stretching all the way back to President Franklin Roosevelt. Frustrated by the Supreme Court striking down his radical and unconstitutional expansions of federal power, Roosevelt pushed for a bill in 1937 which would have allowed him to appoint six new justices, expanding the Court to 15 seats. The idea drew intense opposition in Congress, even from many Democrats, and ultimately went nowhere.
More recently, court-packing became a major issue in the 2020 Democrat presidential primary. Upset at President Donald Trump’s appointment of three originalist judges, at least five major candidates – Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris, as well as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg – supported court expansion. Still, the idea never seemed to make it very far from the fringes of the party.
Now, things have changed. The radical elements of the party are now firmly in control, and it appears that court-packing has become a mainstream position for Democrats as they lob increasingly hostile attacks against the Court.
Liberals are particularly incensed following two recent rulings from the Court banning racial gerrymandering and declining to hear a challenge to a Virginia Supreme Court decision which invalidated a new map that would have handed Democrats four more U.S. House seats.
Democrats’ response to these rulings and others that they don’t like is telling. Instead of arguing that their positions were correct on the merits and the law, they are drawing up plans to blow up the system entirely and simply install new activist judges who will rule however Democrats want, regardless of the Constitution or the law.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has promised that if Democrats retake power this November, “we’re going to have to do something about the Supreme Court. Everything is on the table.” Graham Platner, the Democrat challenger to incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins in Maine – a seat which could well decide the Senate majority – has openly stated that he wants to pack the Court and impeach “at least two” sitting justices. “Squad” member Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) has also called to “expand the Court.”
That drumbeat has been amplified by a corporate media machine which has dishonestly portrayed the Court as a corrupt tool of the conservative establishment. “It’s now clearer than ever that Democrats must pack the Supreme Court,” Michael Cohen recently wrote for MSNOW.
What liberal outrage conveniently leaves out is that the Court – including its six nominally “conservative” justices – often rules against the Trump administration and conservative interests. In 2025 alone, the Court ruled against Trump four times, and in his favor 20 times. Most of the cases where the Court sided with the President dealt with frivolous lawsuits by left-wing activist groups attempting to block legitimate executive actions.
Moreover, according to a study from Penn State University, data compiled over the last 40 years shows that Republican-appointed justices are far more likely to break with conservative positions than are Democrat-appointed justices likely to break with the liberal position.
For Democrats, that’s not good enough. Their new position is that it’s all or nothing – either the Court rules in their favor 100 percent of the time, or they’ll add new justices who will.
To their credit, some media voices still understand that court-packing is dangerous, undemocratic, and unpopular. “The reality is that this debate is not really about legal principle, but about power,” Dace Potas wrote in a recent opinion column for USA Today. “Those pushing court packing are frustrated that their preferred legal arguments are failing, and so they seek to accomplish politically what they cannot achieve judicially.”
A Democrat-led effort to add more partisan liberal justices would be a “crossing the Rubicon” moment for the republic. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest active constitution in the world in part because those in positions of authority have respected the separation of powers. Even in 1937, President Roosevelt – objectively one of the most authoritarian-minded presidents in American history – ultimately backed down from his scheme to turn the Court into a nakedly partisan institution.
The Supreme Court is already suffering from a collapse in public confidence thanks to incessant attacks from Democrats and the media. About half of Americans currently hold an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court, up from just 17 percent in 1987 and 33 percent as recently as 2022, according to Pew.
For Democrats, the Court and by extension the Constitution itself are obstacles to their partisan ambitions. It is hardly any surprise that they are now seeking to destroy both.
Shane Harris is the Editor-in-Chief of AMAC Newsline. You can follow him on X @shaneharris513.
