Democrats' Court-Packing Proposal Is an Extreme Partisan Power Grab
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "Buttigieg Backs Democrats' Extreme Court-Packing Gambit." June 12, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Pete Buttigieg's support for adding more justices to the Supreme Court is really just a partisan scheme to get more favorable rulings. The evidence is that Democrats only push this idea when they lose cases they don't like, proving it's about politics, not genuine reform.
Conclusion
Pete Buttigieg's support for expanding the Supreme Court represents a dangerous partisan power grab that Democrats are pursuing to achieve political ends rather than legitimate judicial reform
Premises
- Buttigieg called the Supreme Court 'rogue' specifically in response to a constitutional ruling (Louisiana v. Callais) that prevented race-based redistricting favored by Democrats
- The timing of renewed court-packing calls coincides with unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, revealing partisan motivations
- Buttigieg has consistently supported court-packing schemes since his 2020 presidential campaign, making it a 'central' component of his platform
- Democrats unanimously voted against a constitutional amendment to keep the court at nine justices, showing unified opposition to maintaining current structure
- Buttigieg's claim that expanding the court would make it 'less partisan' contradicts the partisan timing and motivations behind the proposal
Assumptions
- The current nine-justice Supreme Court structure should be preserved
- Judicial decisions should be based on constitutional interpretation rather than political preferences
- Expanding the court in response to unfavorable rulings constitutes illegitimate court-packing
- The Louisiana v. Callais decision was constitutionally correct
- Democratic motivations are primarily partisan rather than based on legitimate structural concerns