Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg apparently got the message this week that he cannot hope to win the Democratic nomination without promising radical measures, including the packing of the Supreme Court. After denouncing the current Court as “rogue” for not ruling as the left has demanded, Buttigieg endorsed the plan of Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren to pack the Court to reverse adverse constitutional interpretations.
For years, the Supreme Court had a liberal majority that overturned dozens of long-standing cases. That was not viewed as the work of a rogue court. Yet, even as President Donald Trump attacks this Court for ruling repeatedly against him, liberals are now demanding court packing. As the party becomes more radicalized, any candidate expressing doubts over radical demands like court packing is unlikely to make it out of the primaries.
Accordingly, “Mayor Pete” is reaching for Court-Packing Kool-Aid.
In making his pitch to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition convention, Buttigieg knew that he had to offer some radical bona fides. He decided to offer up the Supreme Court:
“We have to do [something] with the Supreme Court, that is now a rogue Supreme Court. To see them eviscerate the Voting Rights Act is to see them reverse some of the most important progress this country ever made, wiping out Black political representation, but also wiping out part of what actually is great within the complex American story.”
That description is part of a campaign of disinformation about the Court’s recent decision to end racial gerrymandering. The Court reaffirmed that the Voting Rights Act would be used to prevent any intentional racial discrimination. It banned states (almost entirely Democratic states) from engaging in racial discrimination to guarantee election results based on the race of the candidates.
He then thrilled the crowd by promising to pack the Court to guarantee the results that he and they are demanding. Declaring that it is “time to think big,” Buttigieg explained:
“Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that there have to be nine Supreme Court justices. That one doesn’t even take a constitutional amendment. It just takes a readiness to set up a court that fits this country. We could have 13 seats matching the district structure of the federal judiciary, but also a process that makes it less partisan.”
Buttigieg appears to be referring to the circuit system, not the district court system.
What is most striking is that he promises to reverse decisions on issues like racial gerrymandering by packing the Court, but then says it will make the Court “less partisan.”
The whole point of adding four new justices selected by the Democrats is to create an instant majority to their liking and to reverse past rulings.
Years ago, I wrote an academic piece on the possible expansion of the Supreme Court, but there is a world of difference between that and a court-packing plan. Under my proposal, the court’s expansion would take almost two decades to ensure that no president could pack the court.
Various Democrats have been pledging to not only impeach Trump (and a long list of other figures), but to pack the Supreme Court as soon as they regain power.
James Carville declared, “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F— it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”
This Nike School of Constitutional Law is catching on with a wide array of pundits and professors. Just do it.
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.
Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”
At base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Court. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.” Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said the court “defies the will of the people.” Reporter John Haltiwanger insisted that “the court is clearly not representative of the U.S. public. It’s supposed to be the people’s court.”
In reality, the court was never meant to be that. It was meant to be the Constitution’s court, designed to stand against everyone and everything except the Constitution. In a system designed to protect the minority, the court (like the Constitution) is counter-majoritarian in much of what it does.
With the Supreme Court removed as a barrier to the left’s radical agenda, Democrats could indeed fulfill the objectives laid out by figures like Klarman to ensure they never lose power again.
That will make the 2028 election the most consequential election for our constitutional history in decades. The outcome will most immediately decide the fate of an institution that has been a stabilizing force for centuries. Even though this Court has ruled against the Trump Administration on a variety of key issues, the left is still demanding that it either yield to all of their demands or face a hostile takeover.
On our 250th anniversary, these reckless and radical voices remind us that (as Benjamin Franklin warned us) this is our Republic if we can keep it.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
James Comey is guilty of conspiracy to endanger the President with co-conspirators he wittingly or unwittingly created or assisted in inciting.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“‘Deranged message’ on National Mall sparks police probe as Trump security fears mount”
– Fox News
OT
Deranged message? Was it a copy of Trump’s recent tweets?
Every day, a new step is taken further away from the Constitution and American freedom.
One wonders why the Founders and Framers wrote the Second Amendment, which even ostensibly actual Americans appear unable to grasp.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
What makes you believe that you deserve to live under the Constitution? Maybe you don’t.
Ruling Expected Soon To Let Trump Purge Experts
In 1935, the high court ruled in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that Congress could shield certain executive branch officials with firing protections.
It laid the groundwork over decades for expert agencies to enjoy a degree of independence from the White House. Today, those agencies investigate plane crashes, oversee product recalls, rule on federal worker rights, adjudicate union disputes and more.
Several of the conservative justices have already signaled they want to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, viewing it as a violation of presidential authority. Trump has teed them up to pull the plug.
He has fired various independent agency heads without claiming to have valid cause, and his firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter set up a direct challenge to the precedent.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5922350-supreme-court-final-opinions-trump-agenda/
………………………………….
If this court overturns precedent, yet again, the ruling should apply to SCOTUS as well; ‘they’ should be overturned and thrown-out like the experts Trump wants to fire.
This idea that one, unstable president should have the authority to chase every real professional out of government could open the door to a government of political hacks; which is exactly what the 1935 decision intended to prevent.
Of course, this is nullification, subversion, insurrection, and treason, comrade.
The legislative and judicial branches enjoy no power to usurp and exercise executive power.
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States is unconstitutional.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
ATS
Your own argument defeats you.
You are free to make any changes you wish to the structure of govenrment – By amendment the constitution.
Without doing so – we have the independent branchs – not 247.
As a practical matter the concept of “independent experts” with anything remotely approaching actual power – is both ludicrously stupid and blatantly unconstitutional.
Both inside and outside government – “Experts” are advisors NOT decision makers.
Businesses have bosses or CEO’s – these CONSULT Experts, they often do as experts recommend – but decisions are made by the boss.
Bosses can DELEGATE a decision, and they do all the time. They can also rescind that delegation.
The same is true outside of business – in YOUR life – the decisions are made by YOU. You consult – often paying for advice from Experts – but YOU make decisions.
The world – not just govenrment works this way – because centuries have taught us this works best.
Some things in the world are top down – others are bottom up.
Nothing is from the middle out.
If you are an “expert” – you have the power and authority to make final decisions ONLY in your live.
Elsewhere you provide advice – and others decide whether to follow that advice or not.
The same it true of the structure of govenrment – The US – and pretty much ALL countries have legislative, executive and judiciary branchs.
Not myriads of independent branches. And – middle out just does not work – not in life, not in government.
Beyond the practical – the constitution created 3 independent branches of govenrment – not 247.
There is a legislative, executive and judicial branch – those are the only branches in our govenrment.
Those are the only constitutionally legitimate independent entities.
Split into your various skin color States. Everyone promptly ignore all federal laws. Fixed it.
Buttgig is an immoral man. You get what you get…
I have a great idea. Let’s take marriage from normal, child-bearing, heterosexual Americans and give full dominion to barren, perversions and freaks of nature, the homosexuals.
Oh, wait. The communist tyrants already did that “fake” marriage thing, huh?
A.I.:
The U.S. Constitution Article III simply establishes the existence of the Court, leaving the power to determine the number of Justices entirely to Congress.
Throughout American history, Congress has used this power to change the size of the Court several times to reflect the growing nation or for political reasons:
• 1789: Set at 6 Justices (1 Chief Justice, 5 Associates).
• 1807: Expanded to 7 Justices.1837: Expanded to 9 Justices.
• 1837: Expanded to 9 Justices.
• 1863: Expanded to 10 Justices.1866: Reduced to 7 Justices.
• 1866: Reduced to 7 Justices.
• 1869: Set at 9 Justices, which has remained the standard to this day.
Because this number is determined by statute rather than the Constitution itself, Congress could theoretically pass a new law to expand or reduce the Court. You can review the exact statutes governing this on Title 28, Section 1 of the U.S. Code.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1
I think the early changes were for good reasons
got anything more recent than 157 years ago?
Wait!
Does that challenge the Constitution and Bill of Rights of 1789???
No, I know, it challenges the Bible of 1200 B.C.
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness!
There are two issues – the first is whether expanding SCOTUS is constitutional – without any doubt it is.
The 2nd is whether it is a good idea – without any doubt it is not.
As a practical matter – 9 justices is TOO MANY. The court should have either 7 or even better 5.
It is more agile with fewer justices.
While there is a good reason to consider creating something like a Superior Court of the United States – basically a nationwide appellate court with a large number of members that sits between the district appellate courts and the Supreme court, that hears cases in smaller panels, that has roughly the same power as the Supreme Court EXCEPT that its decisions are NOT final.
The purpose of such a superior court of the united states is to relieve the Supreme court of the burden of dealing with the massive number of cases it hears – or declines to hear. Allowing the supreme court to step in ONLY when the US Superior court gets things wrong.
Pete had a Supreme Court plan in 2019 when he ran for President that is discussed in the linked article below. Professor Turley should have mentioned or discussed the 2019 plan in this post. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/inside-pete-buttigieg-s-plan-overhaul-supreme-court-n1012491
Why are we wasting our time on Pete?
The fact that Trump nominated and appointed SCOTUS Justices who have ruled against him tells me that we need no more than nine justices for a healthy Court. (While Trump will criticizes any decision losses, -so did Obama and Clinton.)
Looking at six cases:
“The cases span the October 2025 Term, the final argument of which took place on Wednesday, Apr.29 [2026]. The three unanimous decisions studied (Barrett v. United States, Berk v. Choy, and Ellingburg v. United States) were each resolved 9-0. The three contested decisions (United States Postal Service v. Konan, Bowe v. United States, and Hencely v. Fluor Corp.) divided 5-4, 5-4, and 6-3, respectively..” https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/what-oral-argument-behavior-reveals-about-supreme-court-unanimity-and-division/
That’s a sign of good, healthy, jurisprudence.
Adding more justices does nothing to change that—unless they are added for political reasons.
It’s not Buttigieg, it was Lincoln.
Lincoln’s wartime actions realized Madison’s warning about “instruments of tyranny at home.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
“If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within.”
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”
– James Madison
I have previously given solid reasons that the Supreme Court needs expanding to 15 justices.
Isn’t ‘packing’.
By the way at least 2 of the current justices need removal for lack of good behavior.
It would certainly be “packing” if 6 new justices were added to the court in one fell swoop. Please explain this need for a larger Court. Is there any non-partisan reason, one that is not simply based on the desire to change the ideological makeup of the Court?
Precisely.
There is no reason to make the court larger.
There are excellent reaqson to make it smaller.
In the past DBB has argued that it needs to be larger because the Supreme Court is overworked.
The best way to make that problem worse is to expand the supreme court.
If SCOTUS is overworked – create an intermediate court – between the circuit apeals courts and the supreme court.
That probably shoudl be structured like all other appelate courts – a large number of judges – that hear cases in small panels.
If you creat a US superior court – then SCOTUS only has to hear appeals when the supreior court “Gets it wrong”
Even if that is 50% of the time – it should be far less, you have reduced the workload of the supreme court by 50%.
DBB – there is no good reason to expand the court – large deliberative bodies are horribly inefficient.
This is why even congress has committees and subcommittees.
The US Supreme court would work better with FEWER justices – not more.
The more members you put on the court -0 the more messy decisions will be.
If you wish to completely destroy precedent – expand the court to 15 members.
To the greatest extent possible SCOTUS should make narrow decisions and do so if at all possible – unanimously.
The more members you put on the court the more fractured decisions you will get and rhe more disents and concurrances and the more likely you get weak plurality decisions and large by not quite large enough dissents.
Which leave lower courts even more lattitude than the currently have to do their own thing.
And that is a VERY BAD IDEA.
It is better for SCOTUS to make the WRONG decision that an unclear on.
When WRONG decisions are made – often there is a backlash that ultimately results in change.
Muddy decisions, just end up with a mess.
This is also why the court will hopefully overrule humphries executor.
As none other than FDR said almost a century ago – the US has ONE president at a time.
Again – Bad decisions often are temporary. The very worst decisons are unprincipled complex compromises that provide no direction.
You rant that SCOUTS needs more members – you state this as an obvious fact – but you do not actually make an argument – just a naked asserttion.
The FACT is that large deliberative bodies are HORRIBLY inefficient and muddy and get very little done.
If you wish to Weaken the Supreme court – expand it further.
If you wish to try to pack the court with left wing judges – do it the same way both parties have tried for decades.
Not by changing the rules midstream.
All that does is drive a never ending partisanship game.
Is this era the rise of the 3rd world?
Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) was first to say the quiet part out loud ‘TO FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; a constitutional republic created under God embracing and celebrating capitalism, free markets and individual freedoms.
Individual freedoms?
Like paying for welfare, affirmative action, forced busing, militarily-forced racial integration, and nullification of the absolute right to private property including unfair “fair housing” laws, discriminatory “non discrimination” laws, population-replacement immigration-invasion, etc. ???
The Running Mate Kamala Harris Didn’t Dare Choose
“I love Pete,” she writes in her new book. But picking a gay man would have been too risky.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/kamala-harris-running-mate-pete-buttigieg/684249/
Pete was rejected by Kamala Harris as a running mate because he is gay, was dismissed as a limp wrist for Tim Waltz, but still shills for Democrats. Pete is a man who is desperate and embodies true self-loathing
Sorry, Pete, Democrats have no respect for you. Perhaps if you reached out to Scott Bessent, you could follow his trajectory in being a successful, intelligent and impactful leader
The best choice would have been Josh Shapiro but he’s Jewish which is contrary to the party’s beliefs. So they went with the only political dumber than Carmela herself, which I didn’t think was possible.
I live in PA – I do not like Shapiro.
He promised School Choice in order to get elected – and reneged once in office.
One of the reasons that voters are loyal to Trump is he keeps his promises.
That said – as Democrats go – Shapiro is about the least looney choice Harris could have made.
But the rumors I heard when Harris was picking – was that Shapiro and many others turned Harris Down.
That they beleived that being on a ticket with Harris was an end to their political carreer.
Worked out that way for Walz.
Buttigieg: a man without accomplishments whose ambition vastly exceeds his talent and ability.
Buttigieg is hoping that he can declare his very first accomplishment and ambition as going down in history as the first openly-gay president. I could care less if he is gay, but I know he would want network media to show him and his “wife” kissing, hugging, and congratulating.
He believes his greatest accomplishment was taking paternity leave as Transportation Secretary at the height of the supply chain crisis during Covid.