A quiet but determined campaign is underway, fueled by significant fundraising efforts led by former Vice President Kamala Harris. The goal: to preemptively oppose any potential Supreme Court nominees put forth by a future President Donald Trump, even before vacancies officially arise.
This effort is being spearheaded with the assistance of Josh Orton, head of a group that has previously advocated for radical changes to the Court, including expanding its size – a practice known as court packing. Millions are being amassed, with initial projections reaching $3 million, and a potential escalation to $15 million should any justices step down.
The focus is particularly on Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, both of whom are in their seventies, raising the possibility of upcoming retirements. Harris has directly appealed for contributions, framing the situation as a critical moment for the nation’s highest court and warning against allowing Trump to further shape its composition.
This isn’t a reactive strategy; it’s a proactive attempt to reshape the Court’s ideological balance. Documents reveal a long-term plan, articulated years ago by a Harvard professor, to enact sweeping changes that would effectively lock one party into perpetual political advantage – contingent on neutralizing the Court as a potential obstacle.
The plan, as described by a Democratic strategist, envisions a future Democratic president establishing a commission to recommend expanding the Court to thirteen justices. This isn’t presented as a response to judicial overreach, but as a calculated maneuver to secure lasting political power.
Interestingly, this aggressive push appears disconnected from the actual record of the conservative justices. They have, on multiple occasions, ruled against positions taken by President Trump himself, demonstrating a degree of independence often overlooked in the current narrative.
Furthermore, the Court’s decisions are frequently unanimous or near-unanimous, suggesting a less rigidly divided institution than often portrayed. While impactful ideological splits do occur, they represent a minority of cases.
Despite this nuance, Harris continues to rally support by characterizing the Court as “activist,” a claim that belies a deeper ambition. The model for a future justice, it seems, is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – a nominee whose approach to jurisprudence has drawn criticism from across the ideological spectrum.
Jackson herself has faced scrutiny for opinions considered by some to be unconventional and even detrimental to established legal principles, including those protecting First Amendment rights. Her approach, however, is precisely what those driving this fundraising effort appear to want replicated on a larger scale.
The situation took a further turn when Justice Jackson publicly praised Harris’s presidential ambitions, calling her nomination “historic” and a source of “hope.” This endorsement has only intensified concerns among those who view the court-packing push with alarm.
As millions pour in and radical groups prepare for a potential showdown, the prospect of a dramatically altered Supreme Court looms large. For some, it represents a reason for optimism; for others, it signals a potentially unsettling future for the country.
