Clyburn calls for 13-justice Supreme Court, expresses regret over Clarence Thomas support

Rep. Jim Clyburn urged Congress to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices and publicly disavowed his 1991 vote for Clarence Thomas, saying the Court has “decided to reverse course” and Thomas “rebelled” against his roots.

During an appearance on NBC News’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. Jim Clyburn, a senior Democrat from South Carolina, threw his weight behind controversial calls to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to thirteen. In the same interview, Clyburn reflected on his role in Clarence Thomas’s 1991 confirmation, admitting he now regrets having supported Thomas for the bench. Clyburn’s remarks place him squarely in the camp of Democrats demanding a fundamental reshaping of the high court, a position that has drawn sharp division in American politics and raises serious questions about the left’s willingness to upend long-standing constitutional norms.

“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand. And 13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court, and I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours,” Clyburn declared during his televised appearance. His push for court expansion echoes recent proposals from within his party, including one by Kamala Harris, to increase the number of justices to 13, a move critics warn could undermine the independence of the judiciary and set a dangerous precedent for future Congresses.

Clyburn justified his call by accusing the current Supreme Court of reversing “course and tak[ing] this country back.” He argued that new justices are needed who will “follow the constitutional underpinnings” and implied that current rulings stray from those principles. The push to expand the Court and accusations that the judiciary is regressing highlight a growing willingness among Democrats to use raw political power to alter the nation’s most powerful institutions when they disapprove of the outcomes.

Clyburn’s about-face on Clarence Thomas signals deepening partisan rift

The congressman’s regret over supporting Clarence Thomas marks a striking shift from his position more than three decades ago, when he testified on Thomas’s behalf during the contentious 1991 confirmation hearings. “You know, I have made mistakes in my life, and that’s one that I made, and I will own up to that mistake. The fact of the matter is, I had faith and confidence in the fact that his background and experiences would instruct him in his professionalism, especially sitting on the bench,” Clyburn said. He added, “I thought that he would follow those court decisions that upheld the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act. I had no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel the way he has against his own background and experiences.”

Clyburn’s public reversal was further covered by Fox News, which noted that the congressman specifically cited Thomas’s approach to civil rights cases as the reason for his regret. Clyburn said he expected Thomas’s background would lead him to defend the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, but now claims Thomas has not lived up to those expectations. The same report highlighted that conservatives, including Sen. Ted Cruz, have defended Thomas’s independence and willingness to challenge precedent, arguing that following the Constitution should outweigh political pressure.

Democrats escalate calls for court-packing after controversial rulings

Clyburn’s endorsement of a “baker’s dozen” justices is only the latest sign of leftward momentum in the Democratic Party’s approach to the Supreme Court. The Washington Examiner reported that party leaders have increasingly entertained demands from their base to add seats to the Court after a string of rulings that have frustrated progressive goals. This follows a pattern in which Democrats have threatened institutional change whenever the Supreme Court’s decisions cut against their legislative agenda, whether on executive power, immigration, or challenges to White House policy, as seen in recent disputes over presidential authority and major Trump administration victories at the Court. Supreme Court cases on citizenship and presidential power remain flashpoints in the ongoing battle for control of the judiciary.

Proposals to expand the Supreme Court have been floated by prominent Democrats, including Kamala Harris, who is described as having previously proposed raising the number of justices to 13. The push for court-packing is not simply theoretical, Clyburn called for Congress to take “significant actions” to make it a reality. This would require legislation, and while no such bill has yet become law, the rhetoric signals an escalation in partisan efforts to shape the bench.

Reshaping the Court: Political consequences and constitutional questions

Expanding the Supreme Court would fundamentally alter the institution that has stood at nine justices since the 19th century. Critics, including many conservatives, argue that such a move would erode the Court’s legitimacy, turning it into a political football and opening the door for future Congresses to further manipulate its membership for partisan gain. As recent disputes over presidential firing power and executive authority have shown, the Court’s independence is not just a matter of legal theory, it has real consequences for the separation of powers and the rule of law.

The debate over court expansion arrives amid ongoing legal and political controversies involving the Supreme Court, from high-profile defamation suits to challenges of White House initiatives. As seen in recent legal battles involving Supreme Court justices, the institution’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional disputes has never been more contested.

For all the talk of reversing course or “taking this country back,” Clyburn and his allies have not specified what legislative path they intend to pursue, nor have they addressed the long-term dangers of politicizing the judiciary. The fact remains: any move to pack the Court would break with over a century of tradition and risk a tit-for-tat escalation that could undermine the very stability the Constitution was designed to protect.

When the Court has handed down rulings that frustrate a party’s agenda, whether immigration crackdowns, affirming presidential powers, or limiting legal standing for lawsuits, calls for structural change get louder. But the consequences of using raw political power to alter the judiciary’s makeup could linger for generations, as the Supreme Court’s decisions on immigration and executive authority have already shown. Recent immigration rulings underscore the high stakes of keeping the Court independent.

Rhetoric of reversal and the road ahead

Clyburn’s statements reflect a growing frustration among the Democratic Party’s left wing with a Supreme Court that has not delivered progressive victories. His claim that the Court has “decided to reverse course and take this country back” shows just how far some in Washington are willing to go to achieve their preferred outcomes. Whether Congress will act on these calls remains to be seen, but the warning is clear: abandoning constitutional guardrails for short-term political gain carries risks that cut deeper than any single court decision.

The Constitution was designed to protect Americans from the whims of shifting political majorities, not to serve as a canvas for partisan revision. Packing the Supreme Court isn’t reform, it’s a raw attempt to tip the scales when you don’t like the outcome.