U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

We now know what will trigger Democrats’ demands that the Supreme Court be changed and made more liberal so that they get what they want politically.

Anything.

That is, anything with which they disagree, such as this week’s ruling allowing President Donald Trump to end “temporary” deportation protections for thousands of people.

A report at the Federalist confirmed, “Democrats are once again calling for the Supreme Court to be ‘expanded’ and ‘reformed’ after the high court affirmed Thursday in a 6-3 decision that ‘temporary’ means ‘temporary.’

“The Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s efforts to revoke temporary protected status for foreigners in the country.”

In fact, Democrats have demanded the court be changed over issues including abortion, immigration, elections, presidents’ liabilities, redistricting and many more.

Leftists have even gone so far as to claim that it is Republicans who “packed” the court by having nominees from Trump approved by the Senate, under processes that have been used for decades. They claim that to “unpack” the court properly would be to add four “liberal” justices so that Democrat agendas would be endorsed.

The problem is not one of esoteric legalese, warns Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor and counselor whose advice, at times, has guided Congress of those issues.

He explains: “At base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Court. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against ‘widely held public opinion.’ Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said the court ‘defies the will of the people.’ Reporter John Haltiwanger insisted that ‘the court is clearly not representative of the U.S. public. It’s supposed to be the people’s court.’

“In reality, the court was never meant to be that. It was meant to be the Constitution’s court, designed to stand against everyone and everything except the Constitution. In a system designed to protect the minority, the court (like the Constitution) is counter-majoritarian in much of what it does.”

And he warned, “With the Supreme Court removed as a barrier to the left’s radical agenda, Democrats could indeed fulfill the objectives laid out by figures like Klarman to ensure they never lose power again. That will make the 2028 election the most consequential election for our constitutional history in decades. Citizens will vote not only on the next president but also on the future of a core institution that has brought stability and moderation to our political system for 250 years.”

The most recent triggers for Democrats were the Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot decisions just days ago.

Trump tried to revoke Temporary Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Haitian nationals living in the country, but U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued a ruling in February blocking the president from doing so. Reyes justified her usurpation of executive authority by claiming George Washington would have supported TPS, the Federalist reportd.

Immediately, Democrats rushed to demand the court must be “reformed” because they didn’t like the ruling.

The report cited Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who claimed, “Donald Trump’s Supreme Court has ended legal protections for tens of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants. Rather than protect the hard-working families that contribute to our communities, Trump’s justices are sending them back to the same places they fled. Democrats need to reform the court to preserve our rights and protect TPS families.”

And Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who said, “Expand the court.”

And Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who said, “The far-right MAGA majority on the Court cannot stand. We need to win back the House and the Senate and expand the Court.”

And others.

Turley explained the immigration rulings were not a particularly “close call,” as the law itself provides there’s “no judicial review” of those decisions.

He said the three liberal justices dismissed the law itself to advocate “like legislators in objecting to the lifting of the status quo, citing their own views of the merits of such decisions. It is a glimpse into what a packed court would likely look like if these Democratic members are successful.”

“Rep. Yvette Clarke (D., N.Y.) joined Moulton added that the court packing is designed to force the reversal of opinions that she and the other Democrats disagree with: ‘It’s clear now that this legislative body must seize back the power that our increasingly unequal branches have stolen, and that must start with action to protect the hundreds of thousands of TPS holders whose lives depend upon it,'” Turley documented.

He added, “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.”

.

Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is currently a news editor for the WND News Center, and also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. Read more of Bob Unruh's articles here.