Pack It Up!

My website seems to be overflowing with new commentaries this month, but current events and the news just keep serving up softballs that demand a response. The most recent softball was an article published on the MS Now website (so you know it is stuffed with left-wing opinion instead of actual news).  This particular article was titled, Hillary Clinton thinks we should have 13 Supreme Court justices. Here’s why that matters, which was published October 24, 2026. You can tell where the author, Paul Waldman, is coming from when he references Ms. Clinton as a mainstream member of the Democratic party establishment so that whatever she now says in no longer considered radical (or maybe it’s that the Democratic Party is more radical placing her in the middle).

Of course, packing the court is nothing new. Franklin Roosevelt tried to do it almost a hundred years ago but failed. According to the article, Ms. Clinton supports expanding the number of Supreme Court justices based on the fact that there are thirteen circuit appeals courts so, ipso facto, we need 13 justices. But justices haven’t ridden on the circuit courts since the 1800s. So let’s just say it out in public. The sole reason that Ms. Clinton and a slew of other Democrats want more justices on the Court is purely political. They want justices that will rule in favor of their left-wing agenda.

These progressive Democrats also don’t like other aspects of the Supreme Court such as life-time tenure, making it difficult to get rid of long-lived conservative justices. The Framers of the Constitution created life-time tenure for Supreme Court Justices so that the justices would be less influenced by politics, hopefully rendering their opinions based on the Constitution and justice. Ms. Clinton, Mr. Waldman and many other Democrats clearly want justices that are very much influenced by politics. Perhaps, solely influenced by political ideology.

Mr. Feldman cites a number of recent rulings by the Supreme Court that went against their leftist agenda, such as Roe v. Wade, the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action. But the Court ruled against the leftists because, 1) Roe v. Wade made law which is beyond the Court’s mandate (laws against abortion must be made by a legislature), 2) the Voting Rights Act specifically prohibits voting practices that "result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color” and the Court’s decision reinforced this prohibition and 3) affirmative action is clearly not color blind as the Constitution requires because affirmative action denies equal protection based on race. What the progressives want is a Court with the ability to institute their agenda without having to go through the heavy lifting of passing laws in Congress or amending the Constitution.

Mr. Feldman’s article cites a speech made by Justice Elena Kagan where she said that Court decisions showed “a lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions.” She is more concerned with consequences or outcomes than the Constitution, as are her ideological fellow travelers, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There is a reason that these justices and their Democratic handlers want a more activist Court. The reason is that they cannot get their progressive agenda approved through the legislative process because the American people and their elected representatives do not support their leftist ideas. It is much easier to get nine (or thirteen) justices to approve left-wing ideas than 175 million voters.

The American democratic process is not very efficient and the Supreme Court is very much a part of this inefficiency. But it is inefficient on purpose. The Framers of the Constitution staggered the terms of Representatives and Senators, guaranteeing differing perspectives from these legislators. Some of our legislative representation is based on population and some is based on the number of states, preventing a few big states from trampling on the rights of smaller states. And lifetime tenure means justices are not swayed by current events.

Many Democrats consider the Supreme Court an impediment to efficient governance. Of course, President Trump also considers the Court an impediment, keeping him from implementing his agenda. He thinks that justices he appointed should be loyal to him and support his plans. That’s not how it works. The justices (whether appointed by Republican or Democratic presidents) owe their loyalty to the Constitution.

If you want to see how efficient governance works all you have to do is to look toward China. China’s government is very efficient. Whatever Xi Jinping wants he gets (which is why Mr. Trump is so envious of him). Whatever the Communist Party of China determines is government policy is quickly implemented (which is why the Democrats hate having to deal with the long drawn out process of democracy). Of course, the Chinese government implements bad policies with the same efficiency as good policies. The Chinese people have no say. They are subject to party discipline no matter what.

The Democratic Socialists of America want to get rid of the Supreme Court entirely. They want nothing to stand in the way of their leftist ideology (they only say they are democratic because they think you are dumb enough to believe them). Their political platform tells you exactly where they plan to take the country (and you along with it). But if they ever get a majority they will still have to deal with the US Constitution and a Supreme Court dedicated to uphold it.

You may support abortion rights. Then elect legislators that will pass a law making it legal. You may support diversity in our legislature. You are free to vote for candidates of any race, ethnicity or sex you prefer. Gerrymandering voting districts to favor certain races is no better than Jim Crow (and I would like to see how they would come up with a female majority district to make sure we have the correct balance of sexes in our legislatures). You may prefer any sort of crazy left-wing policy you want, all you have to do is elect legislators that will pass such laws (or you can move to California).

But given a non-functioning Congress and an ever-more powerful Executive Branch, you should be happy that the Supreme Court is holding the line and keeping our democracy functioning a little while longer.