Kamala Harris is again promising the radical wing of her party that she will pack the Supreme Court. Pete Buttigieg and others have done the same to pander to the extreme left. These calls are increasing among Democratic leaders despite a recent poll showing that the Court remains the more popular institution vis-à-vis Congress, and that the majority of Americans agree with its major decisions.
The Marquette Law School poll shows that the Court remains slightly underwater in popularity (47% favor, 53% disfavor), but it is still much more popular than Congress or the two political parties. Moreover, that popularity is increasing, not decreasing, as a result of recent decisions. It was at 44% in 2025.
The mantra to pack the Court is premised on the false claim that the Court is ideologically robotic and partisan. That claim has always been disconnected from the actual voting record of the Court. Forty-four percent of cases are decided unanimously by the Supreme Court. When nearly unanimous cases (8-1 and 7-2) are included, that figure jumps to over 60 percent.
The liberal justices themselves have pushed back on the Democratic narrative. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor have all contradicted these claims. Justice Kagan recently spoke publicly on these claims, “rejecting claims that the high court’s conservative majority is in President Donald Trump’s corner.”
The most recent poll shows that Americans agree with most of the major decisions in the last year.
The poll highlights a disconnect with the logic of court packers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has called for packing the Court because it does not follow her views and those of “widely held public opinion.” I have pushed back on that rationale given the Court’s function to be a countermajoritarian institution. However, this poll even challenges the flawed rationale for court packing.
Even the most controversial decisions break at around fifty percent. Notably, the opinion that Harris repeatedly denounces as an attack on democracy (barring racial gerrymandering) is supported by a majority of the country.
Yet, Democratic leaders and the far left continue the false claim that the Court is out-of-step with America and captured by the Administration. The reason is simple. The DSA and far left are threatening establishment candidates. They are throwing institutions such as the Supreme Court to the mob in an attempt to use them to regain power. It is not just tragic but pathetic. These establishment figures are unlikely to be safe from the mob. Hakeem Jeffries can call the Supreme Court “illegitimate” and brandish a baseball bat on social media, but the mob is still chanting “you’re next” when he appears on the screens at rallies.
For its part, the far left knows that the full agenda of changes that it wants to make to our constitutional system cannot occur without control of the Supreme Court. Law professors and deans are joining them in calling for the trashing of our Constitution and “radical changes” to our system. They will need control of the Court to achieve many of those changes.
So the American people may support the Court and favor its decisions, but it still needs to be packed with a liberal majority.
Harris and Buttigieg consider trashing the Supreme Court to be a small price to pay for their own election.
Supreme court size was set at 9 when there were 9 circuit courts. But now there are 13 circuit courts and the 9th is much too big, so should be split. That makes 14 circuit courts. That implies the Supreme court should have 14 justices. But so many makes being the Chief Justice rather full-time, so a total of 15 supreme court justices.
An alternative is to create a Superior Court with national jurisdiction but whose rulings can be appealed to the Supreme Court of 9 justices.
Whatever, something needs to be done to avoid rulings on the so-called shadow docket.
Professor: would you kindly explain the connection between your proposal and the elimination of the fast track docket, i.e., the emergency docket, which is sometimes misleadingly referred to as the shadow docket?
Kansas Elder — Most rulings of circuit courts appealed to and now accepted by the Supreme court would first go to the Superior Court. Few would then be accepted by the Supreme Court, eliminating the shadow docket. Alternatively, with an expanded Supreme Court, accepted matters would be heard by a panel of 3 or 5 judges and very few would be reheard by the full court.
Whatever, the shadow docket gives the appearance of a dictatorship as the explanation of the votes are not forthcoming.
A Constitutional ammedment that locks the number on SCOTUS is needed and thereby takes the issue out of the political arena.
The SCOTUS “IS” in the political arena. It is not an impartial and unbiased body objectively determining whether actions comport with law; it functions as a second legislative branch. Every decision is based on the political components while the corpus juris is irrelevant. In effect, each decision is a legislative bill that either passes or fails.
As Turley and others have noted statisitics regarding decisions do not support your “political arena” view. To be sure, especially with justices like Jackson, political bias does enter their decisions but it tends to break evenly left and right.
Just so. It’s called the Keep-9 Amendment.
https://www.keepnineonthesupremecourt.org/
Are Harris and other Democrats serious about Pres. Trump increasing the SCOTUS to thirteen justices? Perhaps someone should ask her to see how she reacts with yet another word salad/witch’s incantation: “So, dear Kamala, you are for President Trump adding four more Justices? Non political Justices, you say? What’s that? Oh, I see, not HIM, only a Democrat President. Got it.”
How come justice is for thee (conservatives) but not for me (liberals)
Is there really tge other side of the aisle, or are republicans democrats in suits?
Let Harris and every other Democratic leader pitching these far left crazy ideas pitch them as much as they want to. The fact of the matter is the average middle of the road American voter doesn’t want that BS, and they’re not going to vote for these extremists and the crazy Democratic fringe. The democratic base keeps shrinking because of this, they’re never going to regain power because the average American, the Midwest and Middle America voter, they’re not going to vote for the extremists. So let the idiot extremists go at it, let them spew that BS all they want. They’re just shooting themselves in the foot.
Sadly with the assistance of “motor voting and mail in voting…. our influence at the ballot box is compromised. But as even the Republicans won’t vote it in, I’m guessing it works both ways.
Repubs need to ballot harvest.
Turley knows that when he claims that the majority of Americans support the Federalist Society SCOTUS, he cherry picked certain opinions as examples, and the results he cites are within the margin of error, including the alleged “increase” in support from 44% to 47%.
Both are less than 50% and ignore other polls that show that most Americans want a SCOTUS that is not radically right wing. One of the biggest decisions from the Court is massively unpopular—overturning Roe v. Wade after being law of the land for nearly half a century. Most Americans also disagree that the POTUS is above the law.
On the subject of the right to abortion, Blanche promised a group of Evangelical leaders that if he became AG, he would push for strict enforcement of the Comstock Act, which would ban abortion medication from being sent through the mail. He promised them that this move would trump Constitutional amendments in those states that voted to recognize a constitutional right to abortion, including several red states.
Only in MAGA land is 44% a majority. But the purpose of today’s piece is red meat for the disciples and another excuse to attack Democrats—not an objective assessment.
You sound very incoherent. Can you be a little more specific about specific actions. I know it’s Sunday but talk about raging from the political pulpit.
It is not SCOTUS’s job to afirm the opinion of the maority, it is to conform to the constitution.
If the majority does not like that – they can change the constitution.
That said – Contra your claim – the public does not perceive the court in the way that you do.
A streak of Supreme Court decision that 53% of the people disagree with would STILL not be a basis to pack the courts.
It would be relatively normal. The constitution exists to protect us from the overreach of the majority.
But you can not even get to 53% opposition on ANY consequential supreme court decision – much less the more than 60% that you likely need to accomplish anything.
Are SOME of these decisions within the margin of error ? Absolutely – but Why should YOU get to pack the court when allot of its decisions are near 50″50 and the majority for nearly all falls with not against the court – but not outside the magin of error.
Do you believe that all 53-47 polls against you are wrong while all 51-49 polls in your favor are right ?
Absent bias in polling and historically polls are 3-5 pts biased towards the left closing to 1-2 towards the left by the day of elections,
That means the margin of error nearly always favors the right not the left – probably because even absent bias we still get left wing bias.