Democrats want to destroy the constitutional order

When Rep. Haley Stevens endorsed Republican Mike Rogers over fellow Democrat Abdul el Sayed, she was immediately cast out, an apostate of the one true faith. It wasn’t just about el Sayed, Democrats argued. It was about democracy itself. No matter how unhinged, malevolent, or un-American a candidate, even moderate Democrats will rationalize their support by contending they are saving the republic from Donald Trump.In his endorsement, Bruce Springsteen preposterously referred to el Sayed as a “fighter for our American Constitution.” It would be wonderful if Democrats were a party of the constitutional order, but the contention is absurd. Even if we granted every accusation about Trump was true, it would not change the fact that Democrats have embraced unwinding the constitutional order in ways that will far outlast any one politician.The rising democratic socialists and their allies, like el Sayed, explicitly champion the reimagining of our republic as third-world direct democracy. But even “moderate” Democrats have adopted ideas that are meant to destroy norms. The most immediate and dangerous of these threats is court packing. Ever since Barack Obama castigated justices during his 2010 State of the Union for upholding the First Amendment in Citizens United, the left has engaged in a well-funded, full-court press against the Supreme Court. The primary purpose of this delegitimization campaign is so lawmakers can ignore the court. Or, if that fails, for Democrats to turn it into another partisan legislative branch.“We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices like we have 13 district courts,” Kamala Harris, a likely 2028 presidential hopeful, told a crowd at the National Urban League’s annual conference in Nashville. Four additional leftist justices, by happenstance, would be the exact number needed to overcome the originalists on the court. Harris also called for changes to the Electoral College and statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.Rep. Haley Stevens endorsed Republican Mike Rogers over fellow Democrat Abdul el Sayed. (Washington Examiner illustration; Dominic Gwinn/ZUMA Press/Newscom) The last time we “visited” the idea of court packing was during the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Then, as now, it was a transparently illiberal power grab. It will lead to constant expansions of the court by the party in power.The idea was revived by contemporary Democrats because a duly elected president and Senate followed the constitutionally stipulated guidelines for placing highly qualified jurists they disliked on the court. There is nothing more to it.If we are to believe Democrats genuinely believe we need 13 justices, then, presumably, Harris and others would have no problem with Republicans adding a few seats to the court themselves right now. If Democrats were serious about Supreme Court “reform,” of course, they would have no problem supporting additions no matter who wins in 2028.In 1937, incidentally, it was the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee that rebuffed Roosevelt, noting that court packing “should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” Alas, here we are.Even in 2021, Justice Stephen Breyer warned that “alteration motivated by the perception of political influence” would erode trust in the rule of law. “Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg told NPR in 2019. “I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”There is virtually no one on the left to stand against it. Not Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer or alleged moderates like Pete Buttigieg or Josh Shapiro. All of them have either explicitly or implicitly supported the idea of destroying the Supreme Court. It seems unlikely you could win the Democratic nomination without it.The only way to get any of this done would be to eliminate the legislative filibuster, a “reform” that virtually every Democrat always coincidentally supports whenever they happen to be in power. It is, of course, true that the filibuster isn’t in the Constitution. In many ways, however, it is one of the last remaining tools upholding a semblance of constitutional order. Yet to most contemporary Democrats, the 60-vote threshold to cut off debate is an antiquated tool that facilitates “minority rule” — by which they mean constitutional “federalism.”Democrats are keen on empowering narrow, fleeting left-wing majorities cramming through wide-ranging generational “reform” bills without any consensus. They know well that once a massive entitlement or regulatory program is passed, it will be virtually impossible to roll back.Even with crass majoritarian rule, it is difficult to pass big bills. Which is why left-wingers often whine about the alleged “structural advantage” Republicans enjoy in the Senate. In truth, the Senate is skewed towards rural and smaller states, which happens to favor Republicans over the past few years. The point of the two-seat split is to ensure that big population clusters do not lord over the rest of the country. Creating more national “democracy” undermines the very reason the Senate exists, which is the very reason so many Democrats detest it.Even then, though, the grievance doesn’t really hold water. Since the 1995-96 congressional term, the Republicans have controlled the Senate for 17 years while the Democrats have controlled it for 14 years. Over the past 20 years, the Democrats have controlled the Senate for 12 years and Republicans for eight. There is a not insignificant chance that Democrats will win back the Senate this week.Then again, even with that history, the split in the Senate has largely been thin, properly reflecting a national divide. From 2021 to 2025, the Senate split went from zero to two seats.Now, scrapping equal state representation would require a constitutional amendment, which is unlikely to happen. The purpose of grousing about the Senate is to delegitimize another constitutional institution — and to make the argument to add more states.We all know the only reason Democrats propose adding Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., as states is to tip the scales in their favor. The latter idea is an affront to the Constitution. The federal district was created with the distinct purpose of not being a state. The Founders were concerned about the seat of federal power being controlled by a hostile or intrusive state government. They knew if the capital were in a state — much less its own state — the residents would vote to grow and accumulate more power for themselves. Both situations were incompatible with the proper separation of powers and states’ rights.JOSH SHAPIRO MOVES INTO THE STARTING BLOCKS FOR 2028 WITH NEW PACIf anything, the country should expand D.C.’s borders to cover southern Maryland and Northern Virginia where the economy depends on the ever-growing federal government.Democrats want a one-party state. Which is why every political loss is treated as a national crisis that necessitates dismantling the system. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves. There’s scant evidence contemporary American voters are genuinely concerned about the fate of the constitutional order or the norms of “democracy,” either. We have lost that idealism. In many corners of modern discourse, bringing up the Founders or the Constitution is mocked as trite and naïve. If it’s destroyed, it will be our fault.