The debate over Supreme Court reform has reignited with former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg calling for one of the most aggressive expansions of the high court proposed by a prominent Democratic figure to date. During a Sunday appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, Buttigieg argued that the current nine-member bench should be expanded to 15 justices, marking a significant escalation from his previous proposals.
According to American Thinker, Buttigieg told host Kristen Welker that the Supreme Court “has become a nakedly partisan institution,” positioning his call for six additional justices as necessary reform rather than simple expansion. “The idea is not to just add justices for its own sake,” Buttigieg said. “The idea is to reform the institution, to make it less partisan.”
Shifting Numbers and Constitutional Questions
The proposal represents an evolution in Buttigieg’s thinking on court expansion. The outlet reports that he previously advocated for expanding the court to 13 seats, which he said should match “the number of districts” in the federal system. However, critics noted an apparent confusion in terminology: the federal judiciary actually contains 94 judicial districts, while the number 13 refers to appellate circuits, a distinction that drew attention when he made similar remarks in July.
His current proposal for 15 justices aligns with an academic framework developed by law professors Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman. Under that model, judges would be divided evenly between the major parties, with a final bloc chosen through consensus, fundamentally altering the Supreme Court’s traditional structure.
What makes the court-packing debate particularly contentious is that implementing such a change would not require a constitutional amendment. The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices, leaving that determination to Congress. The court has consisted of nine justices since 1869, though it has varied in size throughout American history.
Competing Visions of the Court’s Role
The proposal reflects a fundamental disagreement about the Supreme Court’s purpose and function within American governance. Supporters of expansion argue the court has become ideologically imbalanced and no longer reflects contemporary American values. They frequently invoke language about making the court “look like America” or better “represent the will of the people.”
Critics, however, contend that such rhetoric misunderstands the court’s constitutional design. The judiciary was intentionally structured to be insulated from popular political pressures, with lifetime appointments meant to enable justices to rule based on constitutional interpretation rather than electoral considerations or public opinion polls.
American Thinker’s analysis frames Buttigieg’s proposal as part of a broader Democratic strategy to reshape institutions that have issued rulings contrary to progressive policy preferences. The outlet argues that characterizing the current court as partisan is itself a political maneuver, suggesting that rulings based on constitutional text and original intent are being reframed as partisan simply because they don’t align with Democratic policy goals.
Historical Context and Political Ramifications
The debate over court composition isn’t new to American politics. Franklin D. Roosevelt famously proposed expanding the court in 1937 after it struck down several New Deal programs, a plan that ultimately failed even with his own party controlling Congress. The episode became known as the “court-packing scheme” and remains a cautionary tale about the dangers of manipulating judicial independence for political ends.
More recently, President Biden established a commission to study potential Supreme Court reforms, including expansion, though the commission issued a divided report without making definitive recommendations. During the 2020 campaign, Biden was notably reluctant to take a firm position on court-packing, saying voters “don’t deserve” to know his stance before the election.
The current 6-3 conservative majority on the court has issued several high-profile decisions that have frustrated progressives, including overturning Roe v. Wade, expanding Second Amendment protections, and limiting federal regulatory authority. These rulings have intensified calls from some Democrats for structural reforms to the judiciary.
The Stakes of Institutional Change
Critics of court expansion warn that once the practice begins, it could become a recurring pattern each time party control shifts in Washington. If one party adds justices when in power, the opposing party might feel compelled to do the same when they regain control, potentially leading to an ever-expanding court that loses all semblance of independence.
The outlet characterizes Buttigieg’s proposal as reflecting a broader shift in Democratic messaging, noting that progressive politicians are increasingly open about their desire to fundamentally reshape American institutions. Where previous generations of Democrats might have couched such proposals in more moderate language, figures like Buttigieg are now making explicit arguments for dramatic structural changes.
As the 2026 election cycle unfolds, the question of Supreme Court reform is likely to remain a dividing line between the parties. Democrats point to what they characterize as Republican norm-breaking in blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016 while rushing through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation in 2020. Republicans counter that Democrats are threatening the independence of the judiciary itself by proposing to pack the court whenever its rulings displease them.
Whether Buttigieg’s proposal gains traction will depend largely on electoral outcomes and whether Democrats secure the congressional majorities necessary to implement such a change. For now, it represents one of the most aggressive court reform proposals from a national Democratic figure, signaling that debates over the Supreme Court’s size and structure are far from settled.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/11/pete-buttigieg-gays-for-court-packing/