“We Must Be Clear-Eyed”: Harris Calls To Oppose New SCOTUS Nominees “Before They Happen”

“We Must Be Clear-Eyed”: Harris Calls To Oppose New SCOTUS Nominees “Before They Happen”

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Former Vice President Kamala Harris is rallying Democratic donors to oppose “additional justices” that might be nominated by President Donald Trump “before they happen.”

Harris is heralding the fundraising by Josh Orton, president of the dark-money group “Demand Justice” (made infamous for its campaign to get Justice Stephen Breyer to resign). Demand Justice has pushed a radical agenda, including court packing.

In a post on X, Harris highlighted a New York Times article on the “liberal organization” “preparing a multimillion–dollar effort to oppose potential Trump Supreme Court appointees before they happen.”

Orton announced that “the project would cost $3 million to start and $15 million more if vacancies occurred.” The group expressly cited the possibility of Justices Clarence Thomas (77) and Samuel Alito (76) retiring.

Harris called upon people to contribute, posting that :

“We must be clear eyed about what is at stake with the Supreme Court right now. We cannot allow Donald Trump to hand pick one, if not two, additional justices. The nation’s highest court must be stopped from becoming even more beholden to him.”

We must be clear eyed about what is at stake with the Supreme Court right now. We cannot allow Donald Trump to hand pick one, if not two, additional justices. The nation's highest court must be stopped from becoming even more beholden to him.https://t.co/RF8GJYwptz
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) April 3, 2026

Harris reportedly supports court packing and could use radical groups like Demand Justice to push through an expansion of the Court to produce an immediate liberal majority if Democrats take power.

Harris is right about one thing.

This is an clear-eyed, remorseless strategy on the left to remove an obstacle to an equally radical agenda.

Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

Likewise, Democratic strategist James Carville explained how this process of how the pack-to-power plan would work:

“I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen. A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court. They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.”

The rhetoric for this renewed push for court packing and war chests on the left remains entirely unconnected to the actual record of conservatives on the Court, who have been repeatedly attacked by President Trump for voting against major cases by the Administration. From the tariffs decision to the expected birthright citizenship ruling, the conservative justices have routinely voted against the Administration.

Moreover, the vast majority of opinions on the Court remain unanimous or nearly unanimous. The ideological split on the Court is only present in relatively few cases each term. While those cases admittedly have significant impacts, this is not a rigidly or robotically divided court in most cases. Indeed, liberal justices have pushed back on the left calling for court packing or describing the Court as conservative or ideological.

Yet, Harris continues to rally donors and voters with claims of an “activist” court.

What is most striking about the “clear-eyed” leadership of Harris is that her model for a new justice appears to be the only Biden nominee, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Both conservative and liberal justices have publicly criticized Jackson in past opinions. Jackson has lashed out at her colleagues while adopting analysis that would effectively gut areas like First Amendment jurisprudence.

Many of us have found Jackson’s opinions to be unnerving and unhinged. However, liberal groups and Harris would like to replicate her approach to jurisprudence — suggesting not only a packed court but one populated by unrestrained jurists.

For her part, Justice Jackson shocked many by effectively endorsing Harris in her presidential run. Jackson publicly praised her nomination on ABC’s The View as “historic” and something that “gives a lot of people hope.”

With the millions being raised and radical groups positioning themselves for a court-packing push, there are many who see a second Harris nomination as a cause for “hope.”

For the rest of us, it is not just “clear-eyed” but unblinking dread at what could await this country if this strategy succeeds in the coming years.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden
Mon, 04/06/2026 - 08:35