The call for ruthlessness isn't new, but its source is startling. It wasn't a firebrand activist or a partisan politician who uttered those words, but Bill Kristol – a long-time conservative figure and founder of the Weekly Standard. This shift reveals a disturbing undercurrent in the current political climate.
Kristol now advocates for a radical reshaping of the Supreme Court, specifically “packing” it with liberal justices to swiftly enact sweeping political changes. This isn’t a fringe idea anymore; prominent Democrats are openly discussing similar strategies, fueled by a desire to overcome perceived obstructions to their agenda.
James Carville, a veteran Democratic strategist, bluntly called for expanding the Court to thirteen justices “on day one” of a Democratic administration, dismissing any debate and urging swift action. This “just do it” mentality, echoing a famous marketing slogan, is gaining traction among legal scholars and political commentators.
The rationale isn’t simply about reversing unfavorable rulings. Some, like Harvard professor Michael Klarman, have previously proposed systemic changes designed to limit Republican electoral success, acknowledging the need to pack the Court to overcome potential legal challenges. It’s a calculated plan to solidify power.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder has also championed the idea, framing it as a necessary exercise of power should Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress. This isn’t a spontaneous reaction, but a deliberate strategy being openly discussed and prepared for.
Kristol justifies this drastic measure by pointing to Democratic success in gerrymandering districts in states like California and Virginia. He argues that packing the Court is merely a proportionate response to Republican efforts to challenge what he sees as liberal democracy.
However, there’s a fundamental difference between redrawing political boundaries and altering the structure of the judiciary. While gerrymandering is a long-standing, if controversial, political tactic, the courts are meant to operate above the fray, safeguarding constitutional principles.
Ironically, the argument for packing the Court is often framed as a defense against “illiberal democracy” – a system where democratic processes are used to erode rights and checks and balances. Yet, the proposed solution itself embodies that very illiberal approach.
Even liberal justices have warned against this path. The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg cautioned that packing the Court would irrevocably damage its impartiality, making it appear overtly partisan and undermining public trust.
The courts are designed to be a check on the political branches, ensuring they remain within constitutional limits. Unlike political districts, which are inherently political, the judiciary is meant to be a neutral arbiter. This distinction is crucial to the balance of power.
Notably, there was no widespread call to pack the Court during periods when liberal majorities were actively reshaping constitutional law in the 1960s and 70s. The demand for court packing only intensified when the Court began to rule against preferred outcomes.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, for example, suggested the Court needed to be expanded to align its rulings with “widely held public opinion.” But Article III of the Constitution was specifically designed to shield the Court from such pressures, protecting minority rights against the whims of the majority.
The founders deliberately created barriers to direct democratic power, fearing “democratic despotism” and “mobocracy.” The Supreme Court serves as a vital bulwark against impulsive politics, ensuring reasoned debate and protecting fundamental rights.
“Ruthless” was not a virtue valued by the framers of the Constitution. The system is built on compromise and deliberation, designed to temper passionate impulses. The Court now stands as a critical test of our capacity for reason.
On the 250th anniversary of our Republic, we face a stark choice: celebrate the enduring principles of our founding or succumb to a fit of blind rage and dismantle the institutions that have preserved our freedoms. The fate of the Republic, as Benjamin Franklin warned, remains in our hands.
