Dems’ idiotic rhetoric on courts reveals what they’re really after
The article discusses the Democratic Party's rhetoric regarding judicial reform and their frustrations with the Supreme Court. It highlights the party's calls for changes such as term limits for justices and expanding the court, which some view as a reaction to losing legal battles. The author argues that these demands are rooted in a misunderstanding of the judiciary's role and a disregard for constitutional principles.
- ▪Democrats are pushing for judicial reforms, including term limits for justices and expanding the Supreme Court.
- ▪Rep. Ro Khanna has called for immediate action on court reform, suggesting that the next Democratic administration should not wait for a commission.
- ▪The article criticizes the progressive left for equating judicial decisions that do not align with their views as 'lawless' or 'criminal'.
- ▪House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has proposed exploring judicial reform at both state and federal levels, indicating a desire for significant changes in the judiciary.
- ▪The author warns that undermining the judicial system is a common tactic of authoritarian regimes.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Opinion Dems’ idiotic rhetoric on courts reveals what they’re really after By David Harsanyi Published May 18, 2026, 5:30 a.m. ET House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaking at a press conference on the Democratic Party's redistricting efforts on May 13, 2026. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images See more of our coverage in your search results. Add The New York Post on Google The story plays out the same way virtually every time. Democrats, egged on by the increasingly powerful progressive base, push some obviously unconstitutional scheme that they contended is needed to preserve “democracy.” The courts inevitably knock down the ploy. Frustrated, Democrats ratchet up the anger, promising to “reform” the judiciary that stands in their way. Rep.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at New York Post.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from New York Post
