Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina made plain his desire to pack the Supreme Court during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.
The longtime Democrat declared that the high court needs thirteen justices. This comes at a moment when progressive voices keep pushing to alter the institution.
“Since we are on the topic of the court, let’s speak more broadly about it. Former Vice President Kamala Harris shares some of your criticisms clearly. She’s called for expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13. Do you support adding four more seats to the Supreme Court,” Kristen Welker, the host, asked.
““Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court,” Clyburn stated in response.
“And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”
That language frames court packing as some necessary correction rather than a raw power play.
Clyburn went further, tying his preference to historical shifts in how certain amendments have been read.
“The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted in different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country,” he stated.
“We have now a Supreme Court that decided to reverse course and take this country back.”
The complaint reveals the real motivation. Clyburn prefers the activist style of the Warren era and objects when today’s justices return to the text and original understanding of the Constitution.
In the eyes of right-leaning Americans who value limited government, that reversal is long overdue.
The current Court has pushed back against decades of judicial overreach that treated the Constitution as a blank check for progressive policy.
Clyburn’s baker’s dozen idea is not a serious constitutional reform.
When the Court rules in ways that frustrate the left’s agenda, the response is to change the number of seats rather than persuade the public or amend the Constitution through the proper process.
