Clyburn: SCOTUS Seeking to Return to Dred Scott Era When 'No Black Man Has Any Rights that a White Man Must Respect'

Sen. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) stated during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press that the U.S. Supreme Court should be expanded from its current nine justices to 13, describing the number as “a pretty good number.” The senator responded to a question posed by host Kristen Welker about whether he supported former Vice President Kamala Harris’s call for increasing the size of the court. Clyburn confirmed his agreement, arguing that the current composition of the court has led to decisions that contradict the foundational principles of American democracy. Clyburn’s comments came amid broader discussions about the direction of the Supreme Court, particularly regarding its perceived shift toward conservative interpretations of the Constitution. During the interview, he referenced historical precedents, including the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling, which held that African Americans were not citizens and therefore not entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizenship. He claimed that recent court decisions reflect a desire to return to the stance articulated by Chief Justice Roger Taney in that case, asserting that black individuals “have no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” “This was the Supreme Court that made that decision,” Clyburn said, emphasizing that the current court has moved away from the progressive interpretations associated with the Warren Court era. He criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, suggesting that Thomas has adopted a more extreme ideological stance, moving from a perspective he described as “angry leftist” to one he labeled “very angry rightist.” Clyburn argued that such a transformation reflects a broader trend within the judiciary that undermines the constitutional values enshrined in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. In addition to criticizing the current court’s approach, Clyburn expressed optimism that a larger bench could help restore a more balanced interpretation of the Constitution. He suggested that having 13 justices, referred to as a “baker’s dozen”, would allow for greater diversity of perspectives and potentially lead to more equitable application of constitutional principles. His remarks underscored a growing concern among some Democrats about the influence of the current Supreme Court on civil rights and individual liberties. The discussion took place in the context of ongoing debates over judicial philosophy and the role of the federal judiciary in shaping public policy. While Clyburn focused on the need for structural reform, other voices in political circles have raised questions about the feasibility and implications of expanding the court. Some legal experts argue that altering the size of the court could provoke further polarization, while others suggest that such a move might help counterbalance the perceived ideological imbalance within the current composition. Clyburn’s comments also highlight the deepening divide between progressive and conservative factions within the Democratic Party. His criticism of the current court aligns with broader concerns about the erosion of civil rights protections, particularly in areas related to voting rights and racial equality. At the same time, his advocacy for a larger court signals a willingness to challenge the status quo through legislative action, even if it means confronting potential opposition from both parties. As the conversation continues, the focus remains on how lawmakers might navigate the complex political landscape surrounding judicial reform. Whether through direct legislative measures or indirect pressure on the executive branch, the debate over the Supreme Court’s structure and function shows no signs of abating. For now, Clyburn’s call for expansion stands as a clear indication of the shifting priorities and challenges facing the nation’s highest court.