“Let’s be ruthless.” These words, unfortunately, aren’t new, especially given the current climate of anger. In recent weeks, various liberal figures—from pundits to politicians—have openly called for drastic and even violent measures. For instance, comedian Margaret Cho recently announced the need for “a brutal, bloodthirsty, violent Democratic Party.”
Interestingly, Bill Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard and editor-in-chief of Bulwark, expressed similar sentiments. Once a prominent figure in the conservative wing of the Republican Party, Kristol has since distanced himself from it, becoming a prominent anti-Trump voice. While many conservatives have genuine reasons for their disagreements with Trump, Kristol’s stance is more about pushing a Democratic agenda to consolidate a liberal majority in the Supreme Court, aiming to initiate significant political changes.
Recently, several Democrats have not only promised to impeach Trump but also to pack the Supreme Court if they regain power. Notably, James Carville articulated, “If Democrats take the presidency and both houses of Congress, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13 members immediately. Just do it.” His bluntness about seizing this opportunity reinforces the notion of bold action.
Meanwhile, those interested in the legal system will note the provocative ideas of Harvard professor Michael Claman, who suggested a system overhaul to prevent the Republican Party from winning elections again. He acknowledged the fear that the Supreme Court could negate such plans, emphasizing the need to prepare it for potential changes.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder hinted at similar themes, discussing the use of power in the context of a Democratic sweep by 2028.
Years back, I wrote about the potential of expanding the Supreme Court, emphasizing the gradual nature of such changes, which would take decades to implement effectively. Unlike mere political maneuvers, Kristol’s advocacy seems to endorse an outright packing of the courts, citing recent Democratic successes in gerrymandering as justification. He argues that expanding the Supreme Court is akin to redistricting efforts—essential to counteract what he perceives as threats to democracy.
To Kristol, the time for a “ruthless” approach is now. He championed the leadership of figures like Gavin Newsom, asserting that Democrats must respond to Republican maneuvers with equal ferocity. This raises questions about the morality of such actions, as redistricting and court packing aren’t exactly interchangeable. Historically, courts have served as checks on the powers of political branches, which makes Kristol’s call for a more aggressive strategy seem contradictory.
Interestingly, notable liberal justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have warned against the repercussions of court packing. She argued it could undermine the very integrity of the Supreme Court, suggesting that partisan moves would erode the court’s standing.
Political alignments shift, but courts are designed to operate independently of the whims of current political sentiments. The Founders intentionally created the Supreme Court as a safeguard against fluctuations in public opinion—considering it a bulwark against the potential for “mob rule.” It’s worth pondering whether those advocating for a swift liberal majority genuinely think such a tactic wouldn’t damage the court’s independence.
As we near the 250th anniversary of the Republic, we’re faced with a choice: either preserve the foundational principles of our democracy or risk annihilating them in moments of unrestrained rage. The path we take now will determine the future of our institutions.
