Court Packing Threatens Constitutional Order and Democratic Legitimacy
Source: "Bulwark editor Bill Kristol calls to ruthlessly pack the Supreme Court | Fox News." April 25, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
Democrats want to add more justices to the Supreme Court to get the rulings they want, and even some former conservatives are supporting this. This is wrong because it would turn the highest court into just another political tool instead of an independent check on government power.
Conclusion
The Democratic plan to pack the Supreme Court, now endorsed by former conservative Bill Kristol, is a dangerous and illegitimate attack on constitutional governance that would undermine the rule of law
Premises
- Court packing is fundamentally different from political gerrymandering because courts serve as constitutional checks on political branches rather than being political units themselves
- Democrats are only calling for court packing now that the Court rules against their preferred outcomes, showing this is purely partisan rather than principled
- Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed court packing, warning it would make the Court look partisan and destroy its continuity and cohesion
- The rationale being used (comparing court packing to gerrymandering) represents 'illiberal democracy' - using democratic means to curtail rights and weaken checks and balances
- Bill Kristol's endorsement of 'ruthless' tactics represents a concerning shift from a former conservative who has abandoned constitutional principles in anti-Trump fervor
Assumptions
- The current Supreme Court composition is legitimate and not itself the result of partisan manipulation
- Constitutional stability and institutional continuity are more important than achieving particular political outcomes
- The Supreme Court should remain above partisan politics and serve as a neutral arbiter
- There is a meaningful distinction between political institutions (like legislatures) and judicial institutions in terms of democratic legitimacy