MAYBE THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE FEWER SEATS (AND OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT A FIGHT I DON'T TRUST DEMOCRATS TO WIN)

This past Sunday, Congressman Jim Cyburn brought the notion of Supreme Court reform into the Democratic mainstream.

“Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker asked Clyburn if he agreed with former Vice President Kamala Harris’s request for court expansion in an interview.

“Yes, I do,” the South Carolina Democrat said. “I think we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand, and 13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen, it would be a good number to have on the court.”

The party's leaders usually recoil in horror whenever a Democrat or progressive proposes a major shakeup like this, so Clyburn's statement represents a real change in the party establishment's thinking.

House Speaker Mike Johnson subsequently announced a plan to have the House vote on a constitutional amendment fixing the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices. This is pure theater -- a constitutional amendment needs to pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds vote, after which it needs to be ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures. That's not going to happen.

But this is just an early effort on Republicans' part to persuade Americans that what the GOP prefers is what the Founders would have preferred and what Democrats want is evil, weird, and un-American.

If Democrats hold both houses of Congress and the White House after the 2028 election, they'll have every right to change the makeup of the Court, the size of which is not specified in the Constitution. They can do it simply by passing a law.

But if they get serious about this, there'll be a massive propaganda camapign against it. The entire right will be opposed, and portions of the "liberal" media will undoubtedly join in. (Already, MS NOW has published an opinion piece headlined "Rep. Jim Clyburn’s Supreme Court Plan Isn’t Worth Discussing.") Democrats will need to out-message Republicans on this, and I hope they're up to the task. Some of what I'm seeing from the liberal commentariat right now seems to assume a nerdish understanding of the federal judiciary that most Americans simply don't have.

13 justices for the 13 districts has got to be the throughline; the age limits, senior status and rotations can roll into that. THIRTEEN JUSTICES FOR THIRTEEN DISTRICTS. MARCH.

— bskwitter.bsky.social (@bskwitter.bsky.social) June 25, 2026 at 8:39 PM

How many Americans know there are thirteen federal courts of appeals? If you're going to go in this direction, you'll need to start by doing some education. Well-educated Democrats often forget that ordinary Americans don't have the knowledge base they have. They can't win this fight in the court of public opinion unless they recognize how much ordinary Americans know.

Democrats could counter the suggestion that we need to stick with nine justices by saying that if you really want to do this the Founders' way, we should have only six justices, the way we did at the beginning, in 1789. If Republicans are such defenders of tradition, why don't they want that?

The key point Democrats need to make -- and make over and over again until all of America understands it -- is that the number of justices on the Court has changed several times in our history.

We're in the mess we're in because Republican presidents have appointed 15 of the last 20 Supreme Court justices. That's created a Court that's far to the right of the American public. I don't know whether Democrats want to stress that point, because to a large extent it's just luck of the draw. (Jimmy Carter had no vacancies to fill during his four-year term in office, and Joe Biden had only one, but Trump -- partly because Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on Merrick Garland in 2016 -- had three in his first four-year term.) But it still suggests how out of whack this Court is, and I think it's worth bringing up.

For sheer vindictiveness, I'd like Democrats to pass a law reducing the Court to six justices, with the (Democratic) president in charge at the law's enactment being given the discretion to remove three justices of his or her choosing. (Presumably the choice would be the three appointed by a president who went on to be convicted of dozens of felonies.)

But that's not a serious proposal. I think Democrats need to settle soon on a set of reforms and settle on a campaign built on talking points that explain why this is a reasonable thing to do and not a violation of the Constitution or federal law. They mustn't let themselves get outmessaged.