On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a “baker’s dozen,” or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted. In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn’s “baker’s dozen” is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites.
When asked by host Kristen Welker whether he supports the call of former Vice President Kamala Harris to pack the Court, Clyburn responded:
“Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the Court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”
Clyburn then made the sensational claim that, without taking over the Court, blacks could be returned to virtual slave conditions. He added:
“The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney that said that no black man has any rights that a white man must respect.”
So, while recognizing that interpretations have evolved, Clyburn now demands a takeover of the Court because he disagrees with the current interpretations. It was fine when interpretations aligned with his views, but opposing viewpoints are intolerable and warrant packing the Court with reliable liberal votes. Other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.
The unhinged rhetoric reflects the importance of taking over the Court by Democrats who view the institution as a barrier to carrying out a radical agenda, including proposals that are considered unconstitutional. Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Eric Holder and James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.
Of course, these figures know that it will take a great deal to get Americans to trash core institutions and values. Polls have long shown that a majority of citizens oppose efforts to pack the Court. FDR’s infamous court-packing plan in the 1930s has been widely panned in history, but is now being used as a model by many Democrats to achieve short-term political goals.
In order to overcome this fealty to our constitutional system, citizens must be very angry or very afraid. That is why the rage rhetoric is increasing as we approach the midterm elections. In the last election, the prediction was the imminent end of democracy. Now it is the return to slavery conditions in the United States.
One can disagree with the Court without suggesting that these justices are effective racists or want to return the nation to pre-Civil War slavery conditions. The suggestion that the Court would return this country to the Dred Scott period from before the Civil War is deeply offensive to the conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African American. It is an absurd suggestion and shows contempt not just for the Court but for Black voters.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Mr. Turley… then if Rep. James Clyburn and Kamala and increasing bunch of DEMS want the court to be ‘packed’, why doesn’t Trump get the ball rolling and take it to 13??! Would that shut them up you think? Thanks for all you do.
#. It’s the content of Clyburn’s character. He doesn’t understand law nor its use and it’s doubtful he understands he’s a cheater, a thief of justice.
There is some solace in understanding nothing is remembered after death. Some unfortunate schmuck will inherit the tragedy of your life.
Mr. Clyburn is still soaked in pre-Civil War slavery and Justice Taney’s 1857 Dred Scott decision. It’s all that he has Jonathan. What a pathetic interview.
I prefer 19. In Turley’s efforts to push packing the court in the ’90’s in order to achieve a supposedly ‘conservative’ majority, I believe he advocated for 13. Could be wrong on the number, but he actively campaigned for packing the court. It would be the height of hypocrisy (which of course Turley constantly aspires to) in order not to see a) the court was packed by McConnell, and b) that this court is actively working a pro dictatorship agenda. Only problem with Clyburn’s sentiment is that it doesn’t go strong enough. A court expansion is warranted just on population growth alone. However, it’s Turley’s job to finger pop his b hole in order to maintain his position as a right wing social media influencer.
Amen to all of this. Turley is the epitome of hypocrisy. The kicker is – he actually disdains his own readers. He is so afraid of telling them objective truths – of what his old positions were and how they contradict his new opinions. He is so afraid of telling both sides of any argument – because he knows that his rabid fanbase will abandon him and his book sales will plummet. As someone once said – Jonathan Turley is simply Mike Lindell with tenure.
The hypocrisy here is staggering.
In the relatively recent past Turley recommended expanding SCOTUS to 19 members.
Here is what he wrote.
“Our highest court is so small that the views of individual justices have a distorting and idiosyncratic effect on our laws. The deep respect for the Supreme Court as an institution often blinds us to its flaws, the greatest of which is that it is demonstrably too small. Nine members is one of the worst numbers you could pick — and it’s certainly not what the founders chose. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices, and the court’s size has fluctuated through the years. It’s time for it to change again.”
“I believe that many of the court’s problems come back to its dysfunctionally small size. This is something that countries with larger high courts manage to avoid: Germany (16 members), Japan (15), United Kingdom (12) and Israel (15). France uses 124 judges and deputy judges, while Spain has 74. These systems have structural differences, but they eliminate our concentration-of-power problem.”
“While the best number is debatable, I believe that a 19-member court — roughly the average size of a circuit court — would be ideal. Appellate circuits are often divided between liberal and conservative judges. Yet it is rare that one or two of those judges consistently provide the swing votes on all issues when they sit as a whole. Appellate courts of this size have proved to be manageable while allowing for more diversity in their members. More important, the power of individual judges is diluted.”
“We treat institutions such as the Supreme Court as inviolate. However, the framers not only gave us a brilliant system of government but the ability to improve it to better meet contemporary demands. The respect that most of us hold for the court should motivate us, not deter us, from reforming it. Just as the philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham called for “the greatest good for the greatest number,” sometimes the greatest good can be found in the greater number.”
These are verbatim extracts from articles written by Jonathan Turley.
One of the pieces appeared in this very blog.
There are many other pieces written by him on this topic, but I can only post 2 links.
This is irrefutable evidence that Turley is nothing more than a political hack, available for hire to the highest bidder.
https://captimes.com/news/opinion/column/jonathan-turley-why-high-court-should-have-19-not-9-justices/article_c3cbd198-d076-56a9-a01a-a85aac92333b.html
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/02/02/how-to-really-change-the-supreme-court-three-reforms-that-could-make-for-a-bigger-and-better-court/
That may actually happen. We will.have to wait and see. If it does our free republic will die shortly thereafter. MAGA is far from perfect. Our republic in its current form is far from perfect. However, there has never been nor will there ever be any government better at protecting God given rights and economic security to the most people.
I saw the Clyburn interview. It is frightening how ignorant people are in government who you would assume know something about the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the law. I can understand expanding the Court if there is a workload issue and if so, perhaps over many years during future presidential terms.
“We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back””
What we actually have now is a court that is 22% African-American, higher than it’s been in its history, and disproportionate to the Black population, which is only 13%.
It is Clyburn who is living in the past; specifically 1965.
But why are we listening to an election denier like Clyburn anyway? A man who, like Bennie Thompson, voted to object to counting Ohio’s Electoral Votes on January 6, 2005, citing specious claims of election “irregularities,” like computerized voting machines that rang up votes for the wrong candidates. Such men have no credibility.
I do not know how anyone sane or paying attention can still vote blue. Anyone that continues to is not either of those two things in 2026. The most low-fo voters on earth are American democrats. It’s cute how their constituents seem to think they are somehow elite by association when they live in filth and squalor in their cities. Younger generations (particularly those that have known nothing other than ‘Obama’s America’) increasingly simply think this is somehow ‘normal’.
Those of us that know better can’t relent. There will come a time in the future when people from blue places regard the freedom everywhere else with the same wonder that European tourists did during the World Cup.
I do not know how anyone sane or paying attention can still vote blue. Well, that’s because you are singularly stupid, and willfully ignorant.
You can’t make an argument without knowing relevant facts. You in this case exceed expectations.
What makes you think you know better?
A handful of foreigners post a handful of videos (counted 5 different that they used), rightist media twists that into a headline – democracy wins over the hearts and minds etc. One thing is clear about MAGA, is its willingness to resort to delusion to fabricate progress.
“I do not know how anyone sane or paying attention can still vote blue.”
Because we don’t want fascism. Not complicated.
Stop lying, old girl. One-party rule is fundamental to fascism.
I got tired of following Sally on Grindr because Sally is not a she but a he with a small pecker. I was mortified to learn that Sally’s pecker was shorter than mine, so don’t believe anything Sally writes. Sally is hoping Wally comes along to bang it. However, Wally is busy fornicating with Gigi who got gonorrhea from George who contracted it from Natacha who told X to stop using AI to post DNC cult talking points. Crazy right?
Dems can’t win with our current form of government so they want to replace it with one that does work for them. how illiberal of them.
Well we like the government the way it is now, and we voted for it!
Replace it? They’re using the so called rules as we all know them.. Constituent stills exists, SCOTUS is still 9, the Senate is alive and kicking. Nothing has changed except for your heightened paranoia.
The court isn’t the problem. He should spend more time watching “48 Hours” and working his ‘community to raise their moral high ground.They’re not depraved on account of they’re deprived. Their moral compass points south. Packing the court won’t change that direction.
Can someone please give me an example of when in history one-party rule was ever a good idea?
If it’s such a good idea to expand the court why doesn’t Clyburn do it right now under President Trump? Because it is not a good idea, it’s a partisan play to seize power.
This is how I look at if something is fair and a good idea. Would the party clamoring for the change support implementing it when their opposition party is in power? If they don’t you know it is bad policy.
You see like vote ID, the Republicans would support that if the Democrats tried to implement it. Same with banning men in women’s sports, the Republicans would support that if the Democrats tried to pass it. That is true of almost 80/20 issues.
I’m just going to start agreeing with the dems, let’s get this done! No time to lose!
I want Trump to leak that he’s thinking about it himself. uno reverse their butts.
Talk about blind obedience to a cult. Running on desperation, these tools haven’t the brain function to see where this is headed. Either THEY lose big OR the nation loses BIG and we are toast.
The open dishonesty of the Dems never ceases to amaze and simultaneously nauseate me. The packing of SCOTUS is to set aside the question of constitutionality in the laws made by Congress. The Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government to protect the public from its government. That protection will disappear along with our rights, freedom and security. The Dems want power over us, not for our best interest but their benefit.
And this is one reason that the SC republican legislature should be condemned for not gerrymandering this jerk out of his seat.
I am a strong believer that sunshine is the best disinfectant because it exposes the egregious nature of a person or idea. Unfortunately, these prog tools are so blinkered, brainwashed and indoctrinated (or just plain vicious and full of hate) that sunlight never reaches their eyes and they blindly stick to the bullying cult and just push on. Even Pavlov’s dogs wouldn’t have been conditioned to eat poison food.
OH HELL YEAH – Pack that Damn Court you old Fools!!! And if anybody gets in the way it might be time for another MILLION MAN MARCH – maybe even go to Selma and cross the bridge again, then have a Fiery but mostly Peaceful Riot in every major city until THE MAN is tired of watching the slums and ghettos burn to the ground. YEAH THAT IS DEFINITELY GONNA GET SOME GOOD RESULTS!!!! Kinda like the Saint George Floyd Riots, right?
They have been indoctrinated to only see the glorious takeover of the nation, there is no other vista for them – it is beginning to resemble those kamikaze pilots of WWII who flew their suicide missions because of their devotion to their cult.
Democrats Lie!! They have never been a fan of The Constitution.
Overt racism in your comment aside, it’s idiotic on its face just on its own. New court strips trump’s immunity, finds a way to reverse Dobbs and opens the gateway for putting trump’s family in jail for decades. So there’s that.
Floyd’s lungs were filled with fluid. He died of a heart attack. Fentanyl at 2.5 greater than lethal dose contributed. Chauvin should have given CPR. There’s nothing that could have been done except to have made him comfortable until dead. Chauvin isn’t a doctor but it was bad ops.
I think Chauvin is going to be an extremely wealthy man once this is fully exposed. Walz and Ellison are going to deal with a civil rights lawsuit that will end their existence.
Advocating for packing the Court should immediately disqualify anyone for public office. The Court is finally interpreting the Constitution as it is written, not as opponents wishes it were. Clyburn & Co. need to realize that this Court has made a number of rulings against Trump, e.g., birthright citizenship. And ending racial gerrymandering should be something everyone supports – including Clyburn. That is what the Civil Rights Act was all about.
” And ending racial gerrymandering should be something everyone supports – including Clyburn.” Never happen, he, just as the rest who still cling to the dem party (and the entire prog/communist/islamist ideology) are mere bots at this point. Indoctrinated enough to function at a base level of communication but not educated enough to recognize the past that they are on beyond the promises of utopia that purchased their votes.
I am IN! Tomorrow DJT will choose an additional 3 (or maybe it should be 6!!) lifetime judges to satisfy the Democrats calls for packing SCOTUS!
I am so excited that every Democrat will vote an emphatic YES on DJT’s nominations!
Of course only power hungry hypocrites would vote NO!
Great days ahead for the USA!
I didn’t watch. I’m sure the crackerjack, unbiased, journalist Welker asked Clyburn if he’d vote to add four new justices now. Right?
You have to tip your hat to the brazenness of the politicians. They do not like a court ruling and they want to pack the court with people they like. It is unConstitutional if I do not like a ruling. The politicians know more than the Justices? You might as well argue traffic trouble with a truck driver.
They only get away with such brazenness because the Media is on their side.
And because their constituency has been, essentially, lobotomized and cannot think for themselves but just follow the leader like lemmings.
I agree. A dozen additional Supreme Court Justices should be nominated by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the Senate immediately.
MAGA is dead. MAGA will be deader than dean come November.
Actually the Dems plunged a knife into their own party by electing inexperienced, neophyte, Socialists like El Sayed, Mamdani, Valdez, Chevalier, Rhabi, Kiros, Kawas, Bribari, Sanchez (heck, what country is this in?) They certainly don’t want a great America because they are hardly American. I welcome their return to their ancestral lands.
Then your spar spangled awesome education would lead you to hop the first boat back to your ancestral lands then, wouldn’t it?
Dean who? Dean Martin? Dean Jagger? Dean from Jan and Dean?
Be specific!
Anonymous,
I have a question for you.
MAGA share and advocate Martin Luther King Jr’s dream: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by
the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Do you share and advocate his dream?
MAGA is just getting started. Wait till you see round 2, it’s where the treasonous left gets completely annihilated, by their own people!
Problem is he’s playing in the basement with Sharpies and abusing the diapers hard.