Staff Reports
Representative James Clyburn’s recent appearance on Meet the Press gave us a blunt one-two punch: he publicly backed expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices and said the current Court is moving the country toward the logic of the 1857 Dred Scott decision. That TV moment deserves attention. It also deserves clear pushback from anyone who cares about the independence of the judiciary and the stability of our republic.
Clyburn’s TV moment: “a baker’s dozen” and big rhetoric
On NBC’s Meet the Press, Kristen Welker asked Representative James Clyburn whether he supported calls to add four seats to bring the Court to 13 justices — a position Former Vice President Kamala Harris has discussed. Clyburn answered, “13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court.” He then escalated by saying the Court has “decided to reverse course” and likened that trend to the Dred Scott era. He even criticized Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and said he regretted his 1991 vote to confirm him. That mix of policy and blistering rhetoric is exactly the kind of public escalation that fuels partisan conflict over the judiciary.
The Dred Scott comparison: wrong history, worse strategy
Dred Scott was the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 decision that denied basic rights to people of African descent. That ruling is rightly condemned and was later undone by the post‑Civil War amendments. Comparing modern conservative rulings to Dred Scott is not merely dramatic — it’s historically over the top and politically dangerous. If your goal is to persuade swing voters or independent judges, calling the Court a return to slavery-era law isn’t smart persuasion. It’s a scorched-earth talking point meant to inflame, not to reason.
Why court expansion — “court packing” — is a bad idea
Putting new seats on the Supreme Court would not fix public trust. It would weaponize the courts. If Congress and a future president can change the Court’s size when one party dislikes decisions, every future majority will do the same. That leads to tit‑for‑tat packing, not stable rule of law. Practical reality matters too: any change would require a bill to pass the House and Senate and then the president’s signature. So it’s both legally messy and politically explosive. Democrats who flirt with adding justices are playing with a precedent that will come back to haunt them.
What comes next and the bottom line
Clyburn’s comments will provoke headlines, responses from both parties, and renewed debate over judicial reform. Republicans should point out the risks of politicizing the Court. Democrats should decide whether they want to win by winning elections or by rewriting the rules when they lose. For ordinary Americans, the takeaway is simple: the Court’s legitimacy matters more than any quick fix. Rhetoric about Dred Scott and “baker’s dozens” won’t improve people’s lives — good policy and stable institutions will. The fight over the Court is a political choice, not a historical inevitability, and voters will remember who chose chaos over calm.
