Hillary Clinton just gave Americans a chilling glimpse of what Democrats have in mind the next time they control Washington.
During the latest episode of High Stakes, her podcast series with Kara Swisher, the failed Democrat presidential candidate endorsed expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13.
"I think instead, we should seriously look at expanding the court while the Democrats are in power," Clinton said.
"You know, it used to be that you'd have one justice for each circuit. We now have 13 circuits. We should have 13 justices. So I would be in, you know, favor of looking at that and see if we could, you know, make it work."
Hillary wants the Supreme Court expanded to 13 Justices -- but not until "Democrats are in power."
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) October 22, 2026
Because it's all about making the court less partisan and has nothing to do with entrenching Democrat power, of course. pic.twitter.com/Z915TCk3Oc
Her thought process runs something like this: The ends justify the means.
That’s it. Not whether it is fair or good for the country. It's whether or not it benefits radical Democrats.
Packing the Supreme Court furthers the means of giving the Democrat Party permanent power. And unlike the Republican Party, the Left means what it says.
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be another legislative chamber whose ideological composition gets adjusted whenever voters elect a different party.
It's an independent branch of government. Yet Clinton is openly pushing a proposal that could allow a Democratic president and Congress to add four new justices to a Court with a 6-3 conservative majority.
And that “conservative” majority includes the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, hardly "rubber stamps" for the conservative agenda.
Clinton's comments are striking because she also dismissed Swisher's suggestion of term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
"Well, I don't agree about term limits, so I disagree with you. I think that term limits are artificial," Clinton said during the full interview.
Supreme Court term limits (or age limits) would likely require a constitutional amendment to enforce.
That's what makes the court-packing proposal chilling: It wouldn't require a constitutional amendment.
Congress sets the number of Supreme Court justices by statute. Under federal law, that number is currently nine.
A Democratic Congress could pass legislation expanding the Court, and a Democratic president could sign it. The president could then nominate justices to fill the new seats, subject to Senate confirmation. Senate legislative rules would still present a hurdle.
So, a question arises: What's to stop Republicans from expanding the Court again the next time they control Congress and the presidency?
I’ll tell you what: Unfree and unfair elections.
Even though the clusterschtupped Republican Party can’t get their fecal matter together enough to pass the SAVE America Act, which has provisions supported by more than 80% of the country, there is still some murky semblance of law and order.
After all, California at least has been put on notice that illegal voting in elections is frowned upon in the federal government, even though the state may be shielded by certain judges who mysteriously get assigned pivotal cases on the matter.
We have to ask ourselves this, then: Are the Democrats bluffing then? I don’t think Hillary Clinton is kidding around.
The second Trump term has scared the living bejeezus out of the Democrats. I mean, Democrats are getting arrested for crimes, foreign fraudsters are being threatened with deportation, and illegal voters are being arrested for illegally voting.
This can all go away with a snap of Kamala Harris’ crooked finger.
And the timing of Clinton's remarks is particularly rich. Just days ago, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was lecturing Republicans about partisan rhetoric while campaigning for Democrats in Florida.
"If you think you can get elected on the cheap, you do it by demonizing whoever you're running against," he complained.
Apparently, Americans are supposed to take lectures about political restraint from one Clinton while the other discusses expanding the nation's highest court when Democrats have the political power to do it.
The Supreme Court's independence is worth protecting regardless of which party occupies the White House.
It shouldn’t change because radical activists are annoyed that the rule of law exists and there are Supreme Court Justices who disagree with their plans to subvert the U.S. Constitution.