“Court Packing: A Threat to the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy”
21 May 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittings00:00 - 02:34
Speaker 1
To deny that, but that's what happened. So right there, we've got two seats officially stolen by Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate, giving them a 6-3 mega court, with a majority of the court now made up of nominees of presidents who lost the popular vote. Lost the popular vote. Roberts and Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all nominated to the court by justices by presidents who lost the popular vote. Now if you don't believe that this Supreme Court has received, has conceived and achieved a remarkable transformation in constitutional jurisprudence, ethics, and behavior on everything from abortion to voting rights to political corruption cases, then you don't have to believe me or you don't have to believe your own eyes.
Just listen to Donald Trump who openly says it's really okay for them to be loyal to the person that appointed them to the almost highest position in the land. The justice of the US Supreme Court, he berates and vilifies justices and judges up and down the federal system who disagree with him or who he feels have been insufficiently robotic in their loyalty to the mega agenda. It's true he doesn't want a justice loyal to the people, as the good chairman of the subcommittee says, or to the constitution. He wants a Supreme Court loyal to him. And whatever is gonna advance his interests, his money, his family, his corporations.
He's got a Supreme Court majority so robotically loyal that they will pluck a doctrine out of thin air. Nothing to do with originalism, nothing to do with textualism, out of thin air, to insulate the president from liability for felony crimes committed in office. We went for more than two centuries without any president ever claiming the right to commit crimes under his office and not to be prosecuted for it. But here we are today. The Supreme Court, we must acknowledge, has been a profoundly conservative, reactionary institution for the vast majority of our history.
What did the Supreme Court ever do for enslaved people between the founding and the Civil War? Nothing other than in 1857 and the Dred Scott decision cement their subjugation into place, saying that the African slave and his descendants have no rights a white man is bound to respect in any way. And then even after the civil war, after the passage of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, drawn from the blood, sweat, and tears of the union,
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.