Former Vice President Kamala Harris is rallying Democratic donors to oppose “additional justices” that might be nominated by President Donald Trump “before they happen.” Harris is heralding the fundraising by Josh Orton, president of the dark-money group “Demand Justice” (made infamous for its campaign to get Justice Stephen Breyer to resign). Demand Justice has pushed a radical agenda, including court packing.
In a post on X, Harris highlighted a New York Times article on the “liberal organization” “preparing a multimillion–dollar effort to oppose potential Trump Supreme Court appointees before they happen.”
Orton announced that “the project would cost $3 million to start and $15 million more if vacancies occurred.” The group expressly cited the possibility of Justices Clarence Thomas (77) and Samuel Alito (76) retiring.
Harris called upon people to contribute, posting that :
“We must be clear eyed about what is at stake with the Supreme Court right now. We cannot allow Donald Trump to hand pick one, if not two, additional justices. The nation’s highest court must be stopped from becoming even more beholden to him.”
Harris reportedly supports court packing and could use radical groups like Demand Justice to push through an expansion of the Court to produce an immediate liberal majority if Democrats take power.
Harris is right about one thing. This is an clear-eyed, remorseless strategy on the left to remove an obstacle to an equally radical agenda.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
Likewise, Democratic strategist James Carville explained how this process of how the pack-to-power plan would work:
“I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen. A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court. They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.”
The rhetoric for this renewed push for court packing and war chests on the left remains entirely unconnected to the actual record of conservatives on the Court, who have been repeatedly attacked by President Trump for voting against major cases by the Administration. From the tariffs decision to the expected birthright citizenship ruling, the conservative justices have routinely voted against the Administration.
Moreover, the vast majority of opinions on the Court remain unanimous or nearly unanimous. The ideological split on the Court is only present in relatively few cases each term. While those cases admittedly have significant impacts, this is not a rigidly or robotically divided court in most cases. Indeed, liberal justices have pushed back on the left calling for court packing or describing the Court as conservative or ideological.
Yet, Harris continues to rally donors and voters with claims of an “activist” court.
What is most striking about the “clear-eyed” leadership of Harris is that her model for a new justice appears to be the only Biden nominee, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Both conservative and liberal justices have publicly criticized Jackson in past opinions. Jackson has lashed out at her colleagues while adopting analysis that would effectively gut areas like First Amendment jurisprudence.
Many of us have found Jackson’s opinions to be unnerving and unhinged. However, liberal groups and Harris would like to replicate her approach to jurisprudence — suggesting not only a packed court but one populated by unrestrained jurists.
For her part, Justice Jackson shocked many by effectively endorsing Harris in her presidential run. Jackson publicly praised her nomination on ABC’s The View as “historic” and something that “gives a lot of people hope.”
With the millions being raised and radical groups positioning themselves for a court-packing push, there are many who see a second Harris nomination as a cause for “hope.” For the rest of us, it is not just “clear-eyed” but unblinking dread at what could await this country if this strategy succeeds in the coming years.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column ran on Fox.com
The Keep-9 amendment is needed now more than ever.
Do you know the steps, effort and the political cache required needed to pass an amendment?
Yes – do it now.
Bored eh? saw your WP blog, its empty. Empty like your brain?
“The Keep-9 amendment is needed now more than ever.”
It would never be ratified in time. Better to call for a Convention of States and hope for its implementation.
What I find amusing about the current progs is that they truly thought that they had sewn up the nation and had clear sailing for the next century to totally and fundamentally transform this grand experiment in self-government and freedom into a nasty totalitarian socialist/communist state with a progressive agenda that would eliminate western culture forever.
Trump was first considered a speedbump. an aberration, a pathetic remnant of a nearly dead conservative ethos polluting their way. When he so handily defeated their token DEI candidate they were discombobulated because that indicated that the conservative movement was alive and well and ready to battle for the life of this nation. They are running in fear and chaos now since their presumptions have proven to be on sand, not granite.
This makes them like a wounded predator, they will stop at nothing to gain their previous control. This is going to be a dangerous decade for us a this pendulum swings back and forth and I fear for my grandchildren should the dems ever gain complete control as this nation, as we knew it, will disappear. I am truly hoping that there are enough non-indoctrinated citizens with enough knowledge and experience to see this impending disaster and move against it.
Amusing you say. Watching grass grow is amusing to you too eh?
Where do you come up with such insane commentary? Its rhetorical.
Your replies never counter my posts, they only criticize in no meaningful way. And that is because you lack depth of understanding and you only skim the surface for key words that allow you to spew meaningless disdain. In other words, there is no there, there to your posts, just your inherent vitriol.
Nailed it
Try reading again Ano.
You missed the whole point.
” hoping that there are enough non-indoctrinated citizens ..” By the sound of your comment, you’re already indoctrinated with something evil. That., “enough knowledge and experience”? Are you implying that you have the requisite “knowledge and experience”, the ultimate prefect conservatives, and others need to catch-up?
No need to reply. Every time you do, you make yourself look crazier than you are.
“the ultimate prefect conservatives”
When did out system of government acquire Prefects? Oh, NM, you’re just an illiterate moron.
I think we need a few more justices just like KBJ. That would teach us all a real lesson in life…
She has all the talent, skill, brains to be an extremely effective Traffic Court Judge.
Dumber than a box of rocks. Embarassingly so.
I take it you’re a traffic court judge? Takes one to know one eh?
“She has all the talent, skill, brains to be an extremely effective Traffic Court Judge.”
Are you kidding? She probably doesn’t the front from the rear…
Or what a women is….. LOL
I stupidly left out the word “know” which was critical to the sarcasm. I plead caffeine deprivation 🙂
Traffic court judges are reasonable and follow the law in my experience. And if not, their judgments can be appealed.
Now that is just pernicious provocation. And that is because you are only a self-automated response mechanism pre-liaded with meaningless prog dribble.
We have 2 black members of SCOTUS. Clarence Thomas, a conservative, was appointed based on his merit alone (despite the despicable performance of then senator biden). Then we turn to the other black member of SCOTUS who was appointed by the same despicable autopen guy merely based on her skin color and her “merit” such as it was, which can be observed in the light of how many were given degrees from prestigious institutions because of the DEI initiative to favor skin color over merit and there we are, stuck with a blatant and observable incompetent.
Surely, we need more incompetence in our judicial branch…just the activist federal court judges alone, that through impartiality to the wind in order to promote an agenda are not sufficient to undermine the very nature of our constitution, let us appoint more of these loons. Rather I would like most of these lenient judges to be held as accessories before the fact when one of their little career criminals are released and then commit murder. Put the entire lot of activist judges behind bars for abrogating their oath of office.
What is the real difference between what is being proposed now and what the colonists lived under after 1763? Back then, Parliament and the Crown worked together to make sure the courts would not stand in the way of imperial policy. Today, we are watching a major faction talk openly about shaping and expanding the Court until it will not stand in the way of its program. On paper both systems have three branches. In practice both move toward two branches that hold the real power and a third that is expected to cooperate.
The other hard question is about us. The founding generation had been raised for self government, steeped in the idea that power must be divided and checked even when “your” side is in charge. How many citizens today have been formed that way. How many can even see that turning the Court into a safe instrument for one coalition is not progress but a return to the very pattern our ancestors finally decided they had to resist.
Oh oh more BS and lies folks.
And of course no sources.
Just lies.
Gee, between you, a low-IQ zero-content troll who contributes nothing, and Olly, who displays historical knowledge, an ability to analyze current events in light of that knowledge, and a willingness to engage in respectful discourse day after day, I choose … Olly.
Oldman, thank you for that. You modeled exactly how I try to handle this place: engage the people who bring knowledge and good faith, and let the drive‑by trolls talk to themselves. If we were having this conversation in person, I would do the same thing and ignore him.
Ignore the trolls you say? Funny, you always react to them, in your response. You’re not sharp at all. The trolls aren’t wrong, your comments lack, just performance commenting. Far too much of that here. Lastly, I notice that you do not use sources? Indicates a lack of credibility.
Yet. YOU failed to post anything that would prove Olly to be wrong………… Hmm
PS… What are you’re sources. I saw none
Yup, they contribute nothing. I think they didn’t get enough breast-feeding from their moms when they were infants and they feel worthless inside. So, being unable to contribute anything of substance, they do the easiest thing that gives them even a slight feeling of value: they troll on here throwing insults at people who are far more intelligent than they are, thinking they’re oh so clever. In reality they’re not clever at all, only objects of pity. Just watch, they’ll probably respond to this comment with more inane insults.
And yet here you are, a brain dead geriatric, trolling a troll. This guy is pure genius folks. Olly, isn’t any different.
And you would be what?
No proof to back up this silty claim by you. Just a insult.
OK ano…
What BS or Lies. Noticed you failed to post any truth at all.
So who is lying.
I trust what Olly has to say, over the BS you post.
Thank you for your perspective, Olly!
It is refreshing!
Curious, what exactly is refreshing, can you explain that please.
@Anonymous
Just so you know, that James is not me, hopefully that is obvious in the tenor. I find Olly refreshing as well.
And as for the piece: it isn’t difficult to understand the left’s simping for an Iranian regime when they essentially want to same for the United States. It is barely hidden, now.
“that James is not me, hopefully that is obvious in the tenor.”
Maybe that one is an alto. Sorry, couldn’t resist…
Every time I hear or see anything about Kamala I realize that I still don’t understand why 75 million Americans voted for her in 2024. She is obviously stupid as a rock, has a voice and a laugh that would peel paint and got to where she was/is only because of her gender, race and friends with benefits. I know, I know, millions of people can’t stand Trump as a person, myself being one of them, but if Presidents can be graded on a scale of 1 to 10 and Trump being a 4 or a 5, how can someone justify voting for a zero?
Please help me understand this. I may be a Wiseoldlawyer but I am still baffled by this.
Those 75M didn’t vote for Harris the candidate, they simply voted against Trump.
You interviewed them all personally?
Expected that response. Didn’t get it eh? Clearly you don’t understand the idea. I guess that makes you either an uniformed voter, or just plain stupid.
That’s a meaningless response. Try English next time.
Anon, I don’t think she got 75 million votes. It’s fraud. It’s simply lies and material fraud. Harris is without rules, ethics, morals and even self reflection. She’s cancer.
This is hardly a new story. Court Packing has been discussed by the democrats for years and goes as far back as FDR. Since he stayed in office for 12 years he was able to accomplish the packing by eventually replacing 7 of 9 justices. Probably that single fact kept the court quite liberal for several decades but it was legitimately done and accepted.
Interesting that Democrats talked him out of expanding and packing the court in the 1930’s and also consented to the constitutional amendment in the 1950’s that term limited the President (and also limited his number of court appointees).
I suppose the Democrats have now abandoned the thought that the country swings back and forth from right to left and back again. Expanding and packing the court would solidify a permanent left wing court with virtually no hope of ever returning back again to the right. Just like single party states run off the rails when there is no opposition, I think this country would go off the rails if court expansion and packing occurs.
I suspect half the country would regard the SCOTUS to be illegitimate and there would be outright disobeying or ignoring of court decisions. And from my point of view they would be right. Do you really think a Republican President would obey an outrageous SCOTUS decision from an expanded, packed, hostile and partisan court, whereas with a non expanded and unpacked court he would likely have to swallow the decision. It’s all about the peoples willingness to accept legitimacy and where the limits are.
The Democrats need to improve their programs and plans in order to expand their voter base. They need to work on improvement and not remaking. They also need to understand why people with money and skills are fleeing their states and cities. I think there is a message there.
Thank you preacher GEB. Same ole nonsense.
So where did GEB lie?
You posted nothing.
“non expanded and unpacked court …” and what pray tell do those words mean individually? And what do they mean together? Why didn’t you write just unchanged? Typical pompous nonsense. Just like Olly and X. If one can’t be clear and concise in their writing, it is not intend to inform but to impress.
For some reason people think the more words they use, the smarter they are.
This is an example of GEB packing is paragraphs with superficial pomposity.
No, GEB is common sense.
This message is for our socialist posters. James Carville predicted that the cackling Harris would defeat Trump in a landslide. He also predicted that Trump would be in jail long ago. Carville is wrong a great deal more than he is right but there is one thing in which he is constantly correct. There’s a sucker born every minute that will be a reporter for The New York Times or The Washington Post in the future. Carville simply knows that the leftist puppies will gather at his feet even when his predictions never come to fruition. Carnival Carville barking to entice you to the greatest show on earth. No one should be surprised when like at the carnival after day five the Arena holds the pungent smell of urine in the air.
Carville is a cantankerous, washed-up old fart.
Carville is a gremlin. He just likes to fight.
BUT… Libs still think hes the smartest man of all
“Carnival Carville[,] barking”
Please forgive me when I plagiarize this.
President Hatchet Man cometh:
It’s not to far off to say that He would want to replace some SCOTUS Justices eligible for retirement as well.
Trump weighs broader cabinet shake-up as Iran war pressure grows
WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump is considering a broader cabinet shake-up in the wake of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s removal this week, as he grows increasingly frustrated with the political fallout from the war with Iran, five people familiar with internal White House discussions said.
By: Nandita Bose, Jana Winter, Gram Slattery and Andrea Shalal – Reuters ~ April 4, 2026
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-weighs-broader-cabinet-shake-up-iran-war-pressure-grows-2026-04-04/
Democrats the Party of NO!
They are pure fascists who hate America….but LOVE illegals
Jesus said to love all people.
Did you hear him say it? When and where please. Got an audio record?
Even Rodney King wanted peace and harmony and his phrase. . .”can’t we all get along?” is needed more these days.
Should anyone really listen to a group that managed to get rid of Stephen Breyer in order to seat KBJ? This is the coarsening of America in a “nut”shell. We replaced, or should I say “they” replaced, a clear thinking, moderate, judicious liberal Justice with a partisan, radical, imbecile who can’t even get along with the other liberals on the Court.
We have gone from great minds like Scalia going to the opera with RBG to little minds like KBJ arguing with Sotomayor. This is what our schools are producing and I am glad I am old.
Absolutely spot on. That one is in t g e 10 ring.
Ah, ole hullbobby as an anon kissing his own butt.
whose tail do you kiss? Asking for another ANO.
Term Limits across the board. The SCOTUS, Senate, House of Representatives, Top Level Military (Brass), Top Level Agencies (FBI, CIA, DOJ, DHS, etc.)
Terms of 4 to 6 years Max.
In Turley-world, the Constitution is apparently a very fragile document that can be shattered by a single Justice Jackson dissent, but it is magically reinforced by Justice Alito flying flags of distress and musing about ‘godliness’ on tape. For Turley, the ‘real’ threat to judicial independence isn’t a Justice accepting luxury vacations or signaling political allegiances from their front lawn; it’s a liberal Justice writing a strongly worded opinion that he happens to disagree with. It’s a convenient brand of ‘neutrality’ where the only people allowed to have ‘history and tradition’ are the ones who agree with him.
X, 2 simple questions. Do you or do you not support court packing, i.e. adding justices all at once, not just nominating justices as positions become available and would you like to see the next Democrat president add 5 Jackson’s to the Court.
You love to rant but please answer these simple questions without mentioning Trump, Turley, MAGA or any other dodge.
He can’t. Every one of his diatribes are riddled with his mental crutches. There isn’t one thread of original though in anything he has ever written.
What a stupid and ignorant comment.
Spoken like a true ignorant reader.
And yet there you are reading it and commenting. That makes you a true ignoramus.
BTW, it wasn’t spoken, it was written. Guess that makes you stupid too.
Hullbobby, You’re asking if I want to ‘cheat’ by adding 5 new players to the game just because I don’t like the score. But here is the problem: you’re acting like the game has been played fairly until now.
On Court Packing: I don’t want to ‘pack’ the Court; I want to fix it. For years, one side has been ‘stacking’ the deck by changing the rules—like refusing to even give a hearing to one judge (Merrick Garland) but rushing another one through in record time (Amy Coney Barrett). If someone keeps changing the rules to make sure they win, eventually you have to change the board just to make it a fair game again.
On ‘5 Jacksons’: Justice Jackson is a highly qualified judge who follows the law. If adding more judges like her makes the Court look more like the rest of America—instead of a lopsided group that only represents one point of view—then that’s not ‘political,’ it’s balanced.
GSX, the rules you think were changed were originally changed by Democrats. However, that isn’t the core issue. You don’t recognize why the Constitution exists or why it is designed to prevent rapid changes. That is because you are looking for immediate results rather than long-term stability. Good law remains in place for decades, centuries, or millennia, precisely because it is a fixed point of reference that doesn’t shift with the political wind.
A study of history would permit you to understand these things in a better way.
What stands out is how many prominent Democrats, such as Harris, openly advocate pure hatred and the drive to dominate every aspect of U.S. politics. This mirrors the well-known and openly stated goal of the Chinese to dominate the world. What is even more striking is that a large segment of the U.S. population appears to support these radical goals. Still more striking is the growing number of billionaires who, no longer content with yachts, mansions, horse stables, and private jets, now seek to buy, or destroy, entire countries.
The younger generations are confronting problems our Founding Fathers could never have imagined, making the defeat of King George III seem like child’s play by comparison.
George III was NOT defeated, he retired in 1811 from public life. In fact he never gave up fighting the Colonists, then the the USA.
He reigned for 59 years and 96 days, making him the longest-reigning and longest-lived British monarch of the House of Hanover.
George 3 went on to dominate the world with the largest navy in history. Defeated? No, in any way , shape or form.
You should change your name from “Anonymous” to “Copy and Paste.”
Jealous eh? Think before you comment.
You are on to something important. What worries me is not just the hunger for control, but the method. When you talk about fixing the Court in advance so it is safe for your agenda, you are not trying to win the next round, you are trying to rig the whole game.
And it lands on citizens who have mostly been trained for managed dependence, not self‑government. Treated as consumers more than citizens, they look “up” for quick fixes and see a compliant Court as a prize, not a warning that the foundations of a free people are being taken apart.
Where do you come up with such BS ? You should go on the Ms. Rachel Show.
Agree
“What is even more striking is that a large segment of the U.S. population appears to support these radical goals. ”
That isn’t so striking when you consider the root cause of that issue, and its insidious, invasive, and pervasive influence on every aspect of modern American life. You forgot to give full credit to public education, and the teachers’ unions that control it.
Many do, but many people don’t understand that the Supreme Court is not a legislative body. They are there to determine if actions by elected officials are within the four corners of the constitution. They may sanction certain activities but that is not to say that the generated them. The source of the problem is the elected official and they are there because of the voting mandates. You see the logic, the responsibility is on those of us who put Trump in office. Make no mistake, democrats have no idea how to run a business. Like Thomas Paine, they fail at most public endeavors. One hopes that there is one amongst them who has the ability to keep the United States strong and, at the same time, recognize those elements that keep its constituents from falling into despotism. Is there no one ?
Correct, there is no one.
I think it is very funny to think of Harris as “clear eyed.” To put it kindly, I think she is the epitome of idiocy.
“I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen. A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that.”
No we don’t know that. Lots of things could happen in 3 years. We do know that the 2028 election will be immensely consequential, especially because the next President’s term overlaps with the 2030 Census, and the 2032 reapportionment. In some ways, the next reapportionment could be more consequential than the question of whether SCOTUS is altered by Congress.
Well we sorta know it by understanding that the nukes dropped on the US must be under dem leadership because a republican wouldn’t allow it.
This is foretelling the real end of democracy and the Europeanization of America.
Bravo!
Spare us the fake crocodile tears. Republicans did the exact same thing. SCOTUS is a political institution and thus is treated like one and of course Democrats will oppose a Republican nominee.
Danny needs to go to law school.
He’s completely and utterly correct. You need to grow a brain.
Danny, please just give us one example of how Republicans have tried to expand the Supreme Court.
Just one statement quoting a Republican saying the number of justices should be increased. You can’t.
Short of providing such statements by Republicans your both sided do it argument falls apart. The desire of control of the nation through the courts is a tactic by only one political party in America. That party is the Democratic party. They say it right out loud so the evidence is clear for those who have ears to hear. Listening is more important than speaking.
Example you ask? We’re surprised you never thought that question through.
So Ano.
In very small words, you have no answer.
If you can’t see that Sotomayor was the dumbest Justice in our lifetime until Jackson came along and said hold my scales then there is something wrong with you.
Wait, an anon commenter calling a SCJ a dumb. You’re the guy who claimed to a retired lawyer. Funny, your comment is vindictive and reeks of stupidity.
Hulbobby, I usually enjoy your commentary, but I take exception to your commentary about Justice Sotomayor. I have known Justice Sotomayor for over 25 years. She is an exceptionally intelligent and accomplished justice. And, yes, I am an attorney licensed in the State of New York and admitted to practice before SCOTUS.
And I also am familiar with and professionally followed a few of the justices–not /nowhere close to the level of private conversations or lunch!
I agree with you that Sotomayor is quite smart, but I do not consider any person as “exceptionally intelligent” if he or she cannot approach an issue with a neutral and objective mindset. For me, that would not be Sotomayor, ….(in addition to her lack of decorum, carriage, and professionalism, notwithstanding any health issues). – And I find her opinionated engagement with young college and law students quite offensive and unprofessional, especially re: her urging students regarding the Texas Abortion law.
My model was Justice O’Connor, who could cut to the chase and straight-talk with a cohesive, balanced opinion. For the females on the Court, I would rank her on top, followed by a close tie between Ginsburg and Kagan. How say you? thx
Catherine, I met Justice Sotomayor at a gathering over lunch. She is a bright and lovely woman who wants to be with everyone, but her focus, why she is needed on the Court, seemed to show why she didn’t belong on the court. Maybe I am wrong, but she should be concentrating on the intent of the founders and the words of the Constitution rather than the emotional settings she brings to the Court.
I hope your traumatic head injury was as painful for you as it is for us.
One vs five. Yeah ok. Reach more will ya
I simply don’t understand why conservative Americans consider civility to be at all times necessary. Kamala Harris is a mediocre intelligence. She is promoted by the insiders of the Democratic Party for exactly that reason. She is not able to understand most of the operations of our society and she certainly doesn’t respect the opinions of those who disagree with her. Her political career has been one of a puppet not a leader. Notwithstanding her law degree and that she somehow passed the California Bar, she knows nothing of constitutional law, jurisprudence, or courtroom procedure and tactics. She is a political hack and drum roll please, she is really stupid. The best that can be said for those who actually repeat anything she says is that they’re lazy. At worst they’re also stupid.
I certainly agree with everything you’ve said with one exception: It’s the “Democrat” Party – NOT the “Democratic Party.” There’s nothing democratic about it.
“Demoncrap Party”
What is the basis for saying that conservative Americans consider civility to be at all times necessary?
There is no basis. Its just a way to psychology manipulate a conversation.
It took Kamalavtwo tries to pass the CalBar
Harris is a cancer killing the body, the US. Cancer is parasitic and kills its host and itself. Radiation is the planned treatment.
“Kamala Harris is a mediocre intelligence. She is promoted by the insiders of the Democratic Party for exactly that reason.”
In blunter terms, she is nothing but a puppet waiting for some George Soros lackey or other to insert his arm up to the elbow in Harris’ bum and commence the show.