Former Vice President Kamala Harris is calling on Democratic donors to oppose “additional judges” that could be appointed by President Donald Trump “before they happen.” Harris announces the fundraiser by Josh Orton, president of the Dark-money group “Demand Justice” (made infamous for his campaign to force Judge Stephen Breyer to resign). Demand Justice has pushed a radical agenda, including court packaging.
In one after on X, Harris highlighted a New York Times article about the “liberal organization” that is “preparing a multimillion-dollar effort to oppose potential Trump Supreme Court appointees before they happen.”
Former Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign rally at Jenison Field House on the campus of Michigan State University, Sunday, Nov. 3, 2024, in East Lansing, Michigan. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Orton announced that “the project would cost $3 million to start and $15 million more if vacancies were to arise.” The group specifically mentioned the possibility that Justices Clarence Thomas (77) and Samuel Alito (76) will retire.
Harris urged people to contribute and posted:
BLACKBURN DEMANDS INVESTIGATION OF JUSTICE JACKSON OVER GRAMMY OUTCOMES APPLAUSES ANTI-ICE RHETORY
“We need to be clear about what is at stake at the Supreme Court right now. We cannot allow Donald Trump to pick one, if not two, additional justices of his own. The highest court in the land must be stopped from imposing any more obligations on him.”
Harris reportedly supports packing the courts and could use radical groups like Demand Justice to make inroads an extension of the Court to secure an immediate liberal majority if the Democrats take power.
Harris is right about one thing. This is a clear-sighted, ruthless strategy by the left to remove an obstacle to an equally radical agenda.
JUSTICE JACKSON LEADS ONLINE RUN AFTER LINKING BIRTH RIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO WALLET STEALING IN JAPAN
Years agoHarvard professor Michael Klarman has laid out a radical agenda to change the system to ensure that Republicans will “never win elections again.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could overturn everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be convened in advance to accommodate these changes.
Similarly, 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 will be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is set to announce a special transition advisory committee on Supreme Court reform. They are going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices increase from nine to thirteen. That’s going to happen, folks.’
During an episode of his podcast Thursday, Democratic strategist James Carville warned his party to focus on hitting the Republican Party over the “big, beautiful bill” and not get distracted by waking issues. (Screenshot/podcast “Politics War Room”)
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER CALLS ON DEMOCRATS TO FOCUS ON EXPANDING THE SUPREME COURT, TERM LIMITS
The rhetoric for this renewed push for lawsuits and war chests on the left remains completely disconnected from 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 tariff decision to the expected Birthright ruling, the conservative justices have consistently voted against the government.
Furthermore, the vast majority of opinions on the Court remain unanimous or nearly unanimous. The ideological division within the Court is only present in relatively few cases per term. While these cases do have significant consequences, in most cases this is not a rigidly or robotically divided court. Liberal judges have indeed done that pushed back on the left calls for lawsuits or describes the Court as conservative or ideological.
Yet Harris continues to rally donors and voters with claims of a ‘activist court.
JONATHAN TURLEY: JUSTICE JACKSON PLAYS PUNDIT TO MEET SCOTUS COLLEAGUES
What is most striking about Harris’ “clear” leadership is that her model for a new justice appears to be the only Biden nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Both conservative And liberal judges have publicly criticized Jackson in previous opinions. Jackson has lashed out at her colleagues while adopting an analysis that would effectively undermining areas such as First Amendment jurisprudence.
U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022. (OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
Many of us found Jackson’s opinion unnerving and unhinged. Liberal groups and Harris, however, would like to reiterate her approach to jurisprudence — suggesting not just a packed court, but one populated by unbridled lawyers.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
For her part, Judge Jackson shocked many by effectively supporting Harris during her presidential run. Jackson publicly praised her nomination on ABC’s The View as “historic” and something that “gives a lot of people hope.”
Now that the millions have been raised and radical groups are positioning themselves for a lawsuit, there are many who see a second Harris nomination as a reason for “hope.” For the rest of us, it is not only a “clear” but an unconditional fear of what awaits this country if this strategy succeeds in the coming years.
CLICK HERE TO JONATHAN TURLEY
