Kamala's 'weird' world
- Harris suggests adding justices to tilt the Supreme Court, reviving FDR’s failed 1937 power grab.
- Court size has been fixed at nine since 1869—a century and a half of settled precedent, now deemed 'weird' by the Left.
- Democrats eye court expansion as a revenge play for Trump’s three conservative appointments.
- The 'spirit of the Constitution' is cited as cover for what looks like a naked partisan rewrite of the rules.
- Critics see this as a slippery slope: if the Left can pack the court, the Right can too—and the judiciary loses its last shred of credibility.
Brief Summary
Vice President Kamala Harris has revived the Democratic hobbyhorse of expanding the Supreme Court, floating the idea of adding justices to 'reinforce the spirit' of the Constitution—a phrase so vague it could justify just about any constitutional vandalism. She pitched this to podcaster Keke Palmer, because why consult constitutional scholars when you can drop legal bombshells on a pop-culture podcast? The proposal isn't new, but it's a desperate echo of FDR's 1937 court-packing scheme, which even his own party rejected as a dictatorial power grab. Since 1869, the Court has stood at nine justices—a number that survived wars, depressions, and partisan squabbles, but apparently not a Trump-led GOP trifecta. The 'weird' world here isn't just the proposal; it's the audacity to dress a blatant partisan power play in the robes of constitutional idealism. If the Democrats retake Congress, this becomes a real fight, turning the Supreme Court into just another political football—kicked around whenever the other team scores.
Why This Matters
This isn't wonkish trivia; it's the blueprint for the end of judicial independence as we know it. If Harris and company succeed, the Supreme Court becomes a yo-yo—padded to seven when the Left loses, shrunk to five when the Right sneezes. Your rights, from abortion to gun control, would no longer hinge on the law but on which party exploited the last midterm turnout. The average reader should care because this isn't about 'fairness'—it's about ensuring whoever controls the White House also controls the final word on your freedoms. The only 'weird' thing is that they're saying the quiet part out loud, and plenty of voters might buy it as 'progress.'