“The Democratic drive to pack the Court is about power, plain and simple,” writes the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal.

[Excerpts of article published under the heading “Democrats Really Want 13 Supreme Court Justices” on The Wall Street Journal website on 4 September 2026]

[By The Editorial Board]

The future of the Supreme Court is on the ballot in November, as Democrats keep showing, over and over. On Wednesday the House voted on a proposal to amend the Constitution to fix the Court at nine Justices, its size since 1869. Passing an amendment takes a two-thirds majority as a first step. This failed, 212-206, with all but a lone Democrat saying no.

As a messaging vote brought up by Republicans, it was revealing. “MAGA’s proposal is to strip Congress of all authority in the matter, to freeze it and cement it permanently in the constitutional architecture for all time, with the suddenly magic number, nine,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said on the floor. “What’s going on here? Well, surprise, surprise, America, it’s another partisan power grab by MAGA.”

Mr. Raskin also brought up the superficial talking point that since the country has 13 appeals courts, it should have 13 Justices. “There are no Justices from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has 67 million Americans living there,” he said. “Five of the Justices today come from the New York City metropolitan area, basically one for each borough. Is it really possible that there are not people from other parts of the country who could effectively and honorably serve on the Supreme Court?”

This argument is ridiculous, as in deserving of ridicule. When America was young, Supreme Court Justices spent part of each year “riding circuit,” hearing cases far afield from Washington, D.C., so the numbers matched. But that era effectively ended 135 years ago. In 1982 lawmakers set up the nationwide Federal Circuit to hear specialized appeals, such as patent disputes. It has no geographic base. And what if Congress someday splits the unwieldy Ninth Circuit? Then 14 Justices?

Mr. Raskin knows all of this. He taught constitutional law for decades. He’s cynically hoping that listeners less familiar with legal history will find the argument for 13 Justices compelling, despite its making no sense.

There’s something to be said for Court nominees with little known hometowns and degrees that don’t say Harvard or Yale, but Mr. Raskin’s real concern isn’t geographic diversity. Try to imagine his response if President Trump’s next Supreme Court nominee were, say, the Ninth Circuit’s conservative Judge Lawrence VanDyke.

The Democratic drive to pack the Court is about power, plain and simple. The Justices in today’s 6-3 majority are deciding cases based on the law as they see it. That includes landmark rulings against President Trump on tariffs, birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, and much more. Yet Mr. Raskin and his friends dislike the Court’s decisions on abortion, free political speech, the colorblind Constitution, and the separation of powers.