As the country marks its 250th year, the fight over how to shape the Supreme Court has returned to the national stage, with the left openly talking about expanding the bench and changing long-standing rules.
We can celebrate Independence Day and still be realistic: the Founders set up an amazing system but they left wiggle room Congress can exploit. That gap is exactly what progressives are circling back to, and they’re talking openly about packing the Supreme Court. This is a political move with long-term consequences that voters should understand now, not later.
The Constitution leaves the number of justices to Congress, which means changing the Court’s size is legal but not necessarily wise. Court packing isn’t a theoretical debate for wonks anymore; it’s a power play aimed at short-circuiting the rule of law when outcomes don’t favor one party. From a conservative point of view, flipping the rules to win policy fights destroys stability and invites retaliation when the next majority takes control.
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have prompted some Democrats to call for big changes in the future.
Senate hopeful Graham Platner of Maine is calling for “ending lifetime Supreme Court appointments” as part of his campaign platform.
And just weeks ago, the former and possible future Presidential nominee said this during a virtual discussion with the group, Emerge America.
“This is a moment where there are no bad ideas; a no bad ideas brainstorm is what I’d like to call it. And in that no bad ideas brainstorm we talk about the Electoral College. We talk about the idea of Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court,” Kamala Harris said.
It’s an idea that’s been floated since 1937 and what is often referred to as FDR’s “court packing plan.”
Some legal experts are relieved that nearly a hundred years later the calls have not been heeded.
That block of ideas should alarm anyone who cares about predictable law and the limits of politics. Court packing is not a nuance; it is a blunt instrument designed to remake constitutional outcomes by changing the referee instead of convincing the public. Once precedent loses its force because the bench is expanded for partisan reasons, law becomes an arm of politics and not a check on it.
If Democrats push ahead with packing, their immediate targets are obvious: roll back pro-gun precedents since Miller was overturned, revive Roe v. Wade under a new case name, revisit race-based districting, and undo other losses they couldn’t win at the ballot box. Those are not abstract threats; they are concrete policy goals already being discussed, and a packed Court is the fastest route to those ends.
What many on the left ignore is reciprocity: if the Court can be packed when one party is in power, the other side will do the same the next time they have a chance. That tit-for-tat escalation would hollow out any notion of a neutral judiciary and turn nominations into another permanent battlefield. Reasonable people should see that as a recipe for chaos, not progress.
Democrats often act as if political control is permanent, governing like they’ve won an eternal mandate instead of recognizing electoral shifts are normal. That hubris helps explain why they reach for institutional changes rather than competitive politics. The risk is real: even if court packing seems unlikely while a friendly administration occupies the White House, the long-term damage to institutions and trust in the law would last far beyond any single presidency.
There’s still a democratic alternative to this constitutional scramble: persuade voters and win elections without remaking institutions to fit the moment. But the temptation to change the rules when the scoreboard looks bad is strong, and the left’s renewed push shows how willing some factions are to bypass slow political work in favor of instant legal fixes. That choice will define how Americans view the Court for generations.
