The Democrats’ Latest Idea – Court Packing!

by David Shephard, ©2026

(May 14, 2026) — For most of my life the Supreme Court of the United States has been in the hands of a liberal majority. It is safe to say that a conservative majority on the Supreme Court is a historical anomaly.

When I was born, or just before, there was the Warren court, considered the most liberal Supreme Court in history, and then we had the Burger court, which moved only slightly to the center. In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran for President promising to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court. Over his two terms he was able to add 3 conservative Justices and nominated a conservative, (a Nixon appointee), William Rehnquist to be Chief Justice. The court did start to move in a more conservative direction, but the court still had enough liberal holdovers from the Warren and Burger courts to limit the rightward drift.

But now, thank God, with the Roberts court, we finally have a solid 6-3 conservative majority. Ronald Reagan’s goal has been achieved. It’s funny when I hear all those on the left complain about a conservative court considering that for most of my life we conservatives have had to stomach a liberal court. But back then the liberals showed us no mercy, nor did they express any sympathy towards us. And despite our minority status on the high court, we conservatives never advocated a court packing scheme as Franklin Roosevelt did.

How did we get to this conservative majority? It is very simple: Trump beat Hillary in 2016. Consider this fact next time you hear a Never Trump Republican on CNN claim that they are conservative, but they didn’t vote for Trump.

I would point out that Trump ran in 2016 on a promise of appointing conservatives (he even named names) to the Supreme Court if given the opportunity. And I would also point out that Hillary didn’t promise to appoint liberal Justices. But had she won she would have gotten 3 appointments and kept the court liberal. Trump won that election and he was able to appoint conservatives, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. They changed the court for the better.

Elections do have consequences, but sadly, Democrats can’t accept this reality, and there is a growing sense of fear and desperation on the left that this court is undoing so much of the work of the Warren and Burger courts. Thankfully so in my opinion.

But out of this despair more and more Democrats are coming out in favor of “Court packing.” This is a scheme to add seats to the court (only to be implemented if Democrats take back the White House) so the President would then get to make 4 more picks once they/them take office. Why 4 more seats? Well, currently there are 6 conservatives and 3 liberals on the court. Four more liberals on the court will give them a 7 to 6 majority.

In Maine, the Democrat nominee for the U.S. Senate, Graham Platner (the guy with the Nazi tattoo) said, “I’m a supporter of stacking the Court.” As the left becomes more and more hysterical, look for more Democrat candidates to come out in favor of court packing.

I am even hearing establishment Democrats embracing the scheme. In an interview this week, longtime Democrat strategist James Carville, not generally associated with the woke left, claimed that Republicans have “stolen” Supreme Court seats. He also described the court as “corrupt, and illegitimate” and therefore a court packing is justified by Democrats when they retake power. He is advising Democrats, “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”

Carville went on to propose court packing: “It can only be reformed by adding four more members, which is constitutionally permissible to do with a legislative majority,” he said. “It’s the only fking thing you could do with these people.”

Why do Carville and Jeffries, and others on the left, continue to claim that the Supreme Court is “illegitimate?” Well, a few reasons. First, the court is not ruling the way they’d like, which makes them illegitimate. Two other reasons: Merrick Garland was denied a seat on the court and the saint Ruth Bader Ginsburg was replaced by a conservative. And finally, they want to demonize the court in an effort to justify court packing.

In 2016 Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died. His death created a vacancy on the high court. Obama was President, so Democrats believed that on the way out the door Obama would get to appoint another liberal to the court. Obama did nominate Merrick Garland, but Republicans had control of the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decided that in the Presidential election year they would not bring up a Supreme Court nomination. The Senate has the right. McConnell reasonably decided he’d wait until after the election and take up the next President’s nominee.

McConnell took a gamble, and it paid off. Trump beat Hillary and nominated a conservative, Neil Gorsuch. Denying Garland a hearing and a vote may not be nice, but it didn’t violate the law or the Constitution. Such a block doesn’t make Gorsuch’s nomination illegitimate. In the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson wanted to make Associate Justice Abe Fortis Chief Justice. But the Senate was not happy about the choice and blocked his nomination. Fortis ultimately withdrew his nomination.

Democrats are warming to the idea of court packing and not just the Supreme Court. In Virginia, the state supreme court shot down the Democrats’ unlawful initiative to amend the state constitution to allow them to redraw the state’s congressional districts along partisan lines. In response, some Democrats, in a call with Hakeem Jeffries, suggested the possibility of replacing the state supreme court. The plan calls for the state to set a new mandatory retirement age of 54. That is the age of the youngest current member of the court. Then the Democrat majority in the Virginia legislature can appoint a whole new court. However, I don’t think this plan will advance.

Ironically, the judge who wrote the majority opinion, Arthur D. Kelsey, was appointed by a Democrat Governor and confirmed by a majority Democrat legislature.

Wouldn’t James Carville, Graham Platner, Hakeem Jeffries and other Democrats be concerned about destroying the legitimacy of the court? That legitimacy is based on the American belief that Justices must be independent of politics. No. They just want a court like Stalin’s courts, a court that rules the way the Party wants. But the court packing would destroy the Supreme Court’s legitimacy permanently.

The 4 extra Judges who would be appointed would be marked for the rest of their term. Everyone would know that they were appointed to rule a certain way. And the judges would know that if they don’t rule in a politically correct way then there could be another expansion.

I would point out that even Joe Biden opposed court packing. Even he knew that that was a radically bad idea.

Today we are in a period of maximum partisanship. When will this partisan fever recede? I don’t know, but for now, the leftwing base of the Democrat Party wants “fighters,” which means that Democrats running for office will push the nuttiest ideas, from extreme gerrymandering to court packing.

Since the Judiciary Act of 1869 we have had 9 Associate Justices on the Supreme Court. There is no need to change that number.

---

David Shephard is a native and very proud Virginian.  Raised in Fairfax County, David graduated from George Mason University and majored in Government and Politics. He spent decades in politics, campaign consulting, raising money and lobbying.  He is also a longtime conservative blogger writing for numerous blogs.  He is also the host of “The Virginia Gentleman Podcast.”

David is the author of Elections Have Consequences, A Cautionary Tale, and his latest book, Norton’s Choice: An Inside Politics Exposé.