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.”
With this move the Democrats have aimed a gun at the heart of the Constitution. If they are unable to fire it in 2028 it will remain armed and dangerous in 2032 and beyond. The only way I see to disarm it is with a constitutional amendment. The Democrats can block any amendment in Congress so I think we need a convention of the states to enact it. That’s a long shot at best.
God how i despise naive idiots.
The Dems can block a convention in congress too. Even if you get sufficient states asking for one, Congress can simply not convene one. The constitution doesn’t authorize anyone to compel Congress to do something it doesn’t want to.
If the Democrats do this, then the Republicans will do it also. We have 535 members of Congress, House and Senate. Imagine the day when we have thousands of Supreme Court Justices fighting over everything, except they are appointed and not elected.
Not only that but if the Demonazis end up losing more jusrices to the other side they will
Say we need to vote on trimming the court.
If anyone knows anything about packing its definitely Pete.
The Court needs to be reduced by two members immediately. Both are women.
The court can’t be reduced immediately. Justices can only be removed for bad behavior. They can’t be removed by simply reducing the court’s size. Any reduction in its size must therefore be by attrition. You can reduce the court’s official size to seven, but it won’t happen until two justices die or retire, and you can’t control which two that will be.
Let’s set a sensible limit for expanding the Supreme Court’s lifetime appointments at 5,000. Or if that’s not enough, we could stretch it to 7,500 but that’s it.
The Dems’ idea is that once they do it they will ensure that the Reps never get a chance to do the same, because they’ll rig the election rules to make it impossible for Reps to win, and they’ll also add DC and PR as states to make sure Reps never win.
Last night C-Span featured the host of SCOTUSblog web site and I learned something I didn’t know: the current court has a RECORD LOW number of overturned precedents. Based on the “news” I would have thought it was a record high. Also the first court to endure mobs of demonstrators ganged up outside the homes of (some) of the justices, despite a specific statute making that illegal.
It’s not illegal — and CAN’T be — unless the demonstrators’ purpose is to influence an upcoming vote. The demonstrators outside their homes were NOT trying to influence them; they were all there to protest against a vote that had already been cast, and that’s protected speech.
They pack it and we become a Hollow sham of our former selves, there like little children always at every opportunity wanting to change the rules in their favor. The Democrats !!!
We need to put Democrats on the record, pass a law to keep the Supreme Court at nine or pack the court now
You can’t pass a law to keep it at nine. The only way to keep it there is to amend the constitution, and that can’t happen without bipartisan agreement.
only butt gig wants to pack the supreme something
Butt gig us only a failed mayor of South Bend and because he is gay was chosen to be in the biden administration.
Please ignore him forever.
OK, let’s pack the court now idiot. Thanks for the warning.
Why not have zero Supreme Court justices…same effect….less money.
Little petty buttplug never had an original idea in his lifetime.
I hope the dems nominate him for president
I think this is a great idea! Let’s do it now! It would be funny to see all these idiots twist themselves in knots to counter there own demands!
Let’s beat the liberals to the punch! Let’s appoint five more Clarance Thomases, Scalias or Alitos ASAP and let’s see how fast the liberals withdraw that idea from consideration.
Isn’t nine enough Petey? And I suppose your party should pick who they are. Leftist tyrants don’t even attempt to disguise who they are any more.
Of course he does…
Little Petey Buttigieg is a Communist just like his father. Joseph Anthony Buttigieg II, was the FOUNDER OF THE MARXIST GRAMSCI SOCIETY. He was a Marxist professor at the University of Notre Dame and lauded the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published in 1848. — Washington Examiner 4/2/19
And, what does that say about Notre Dame, the former Catholic university?
Too bad he, the commie professor, had no children that lived. He got the dregs of society to continue his dastardly deeds. Pete, jr., is weak minded fop. He forgets that we’ve crossed the Rubicon and the slaves have been freed. We’re not going back under the control of human traffickers and perverts for any reason. Give us, Liberty, or give us your death. Whichever you you wish.
Any time I want advice regarding the direction our nation should take, I always turn to the former small town mayor who made it to the big time as Biden’s appointment to Department of Transportation Czar. There, he presided over the worst train derailment environmental disaster in American history. During a press conference dismissed it by commenting that (on his watch and his predecessors) there were over 1,000 train derailments per year. So, if you want more unprecedented national disasters, always do what Mayor Pete tells us is the right way to go.
I’m glad Democrats are now in favor of more judges. This means they will immediately approve all of President Trump’s federal judicial appointments they have been blocking.
We need 535 justices just like the Number in Congress who can vote so we don’t get tied decisions or anything done just like Congress.
Of course each side should be able to expand that number anytime they are in power. Just to be fair.
Which is exactly what will happen. WHEN DOES END?
Buttigieg rivals Trump himself in endorsing constitutional smash-ups in the face of daily political issues.
What has Trump done that is unconditional? It’s the District judges being unconstitutional, which is why Trump wins at that appellate and Supreme level most of the time.
Of course while crying Democracy and Constitution the Democrats believe in neither and want to destroy the current Republic and install a new communist dictatorship Republic. Hey France had already had 5 republics so why not? Idiots.
Radical Democrat demands to pack the Supreme Court, adding four or more seats to be populated by “jurists” who will dance to the tune of Marx and Hegel rather than Jay, Madison and Hamilton, is …, let us be polite here: brain dead lunacy. The Republic needs more Ketanji Brown Jacksons spewing intellectual graffiti like it needs another Civil War. Full stop.
Trump, Sports Betting And SCOTUS
The walls of the eight-sided cage where fighters will pummel each other Sunday on the South Lawn of the White House are plastered with logos for Polymarket, the prediction market where traders already have staked millions on the fights.
Trump, a former Atlantic City casino owner, has emerged as a natural ally for the sports betting and prediction market industries. He purchased $35,000 to $50,000 of stock in DraftKings earlier this year, according to his financial disclosure filings, and his social media company, Truth Social, also has said it is working with Crypto.com to launch its own prediction market, Truth Predict. Crypto.com’s logo appears on the steps to the UFC cage, and it is a primary sponsor of the Sunday fights.
Congress advanced bipartisan legislation in 1992 that outlawed sports betting in every state except Nevada, highlighting how politically unpopular it once was to support the practice. Oregon, Delaware and Montana had limited carve-outs.
But since the Supreme Court struck down that law in 2018, 39 states have legalized sports betting, and bettors have wagered more than $650 billion, according to estimates from Legal Sports Report. The decision enabled the rise of companies such as FanDuel and DraftKings, which allowed people to bet on games directly from their cellphones.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/14/white-house-ufc-fight-showcases-gambling-rise/
…………………………………………
Key Passage From Above:
“But since the Supreme Court struck down that law in 2018, 39 states have legalized sports betting.”
* * * * * * *
Why did this court feel that sports betting was a constitutional right?
How important ‘is’ sports betting to the nation’s welfare?
And the fact that Trump wants to enter the prediction market is totally beneath the dignity of his office. In Trump we have a president constantly on the make.
Total BS; DR:
China produces Lithium at rock bottom prices for manic people like you. Get a case for yourself, X, Esquire, Concerned Citizen, Purple Anonymous, Gigi, George, Svelaz, Wally, Sally. and all your pathetic self-replying, self-upvoting, incel, sock puppet personalities.
bwwwaahahahahahahahahah
Congress advanced bipartisan legislation in 1992 that outlawed sports betting in every state except Nevada,
No, it didn’t. It prohibited the legislatures of the 46 states that had laws banninig sports betting from repealing those laws. It didn’t require the remaining four states to enact such laws.
Why did this court feel that sports betting was a constitutional right?
It didn’t. Congress is free to ban sports betting whenever it likes, and such a ban would override all state laws to the contrary. But it should be obvious that it can’t dictate to state legislatures what laws they may or may not make. The case was brought by New Jersey, which had repealed its ban, but the federal courts had ordered it to reinstate it. The Supreme Court properly found that nothing in the constitution gives Congress the authority to make such a law.
And the fact that Trump wants to enter the prediction market is totally beneath the dignity of his office.
How so? It’s a legitimate business just like any other.
Trump should just go ahead and appoint 4 more justices now. The Dems would be apoplectic 😆😂🤣
He can’t. The law says there are only 9 justices. Only Congress can change that law. And the Dems will filibuster any attempt to change it now, allowing the current president to make those appointments.
The former mayor’s Dad Joseph Buttigieg-was an advocate the of the Marxist/Communist-Antonio -Gramsci—so why wouldn’t he and his son who learned at his father’s knee(think-Obama and his communist father )- -espouse communist ideas of total control…..Please advise everyone of his Marxist advocacy – -This shouldn’t be ignored!
0bama didn’t learn anything from his communist father. He barely knew him. He learned from his communist mother and grandparents, and his grandparents’ communist friends.
That’s why it’s stupid to claim he is or ever was a Moslem. From whom would he learn Islam? He was raised to be a communist atheist, and the only god he has ever worshiped is himself.
When discussing Scotus, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a July 2019 interview with NPR that she believed packing the Court was a bad idea. During the interview, she said, “Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” while expressing that she was opposed to political efforts to change the number of justices.
I agree with Justice Ginsburg.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was, at the end, an idiot who paved the way for the conservative majority on the court.
It was her left wing idiocy that made it happen. Now we have a scotus that has more common sense constitutional decisions . All thanks to the D卐M☭CRATz continual mockery with DEI appointments of truly the lowest caliber of material for a judge.
At the end? She was always an idiot. Democrats had Antonin Scalia murdered so as to effect change they felt needed. So when they set precedent, don’t be sad when it is used against you. Make more judges. We have plenty of bullets, rocks and sticks…
He is all about the packing. of fudge that is.
There is no evidence, nor even any reason to suspect, that Scalia was murdered. Claiming it as a fact makes you a moron who has nothing of any value to say on any subject.