Carville: Democrats have to add states, expand Supreme Court to ‘save democracy'
'They are just going to have to unilaterally add Puerto Rico and District of Columbia as states… They're just going to have to do it. And they may have to expand the [Supreme Court] to 13 members,' Carville said during a Thursday podcast episode.
The proposal comes after the longtime commentator told party members to let the president ' punch himself out ' of the American public's good graces.
Carville says conditions are drastic, citing the GOP push to add five additional House seats in Texas ahead of the 2026 midterms, and require a more forward approach if Democrats capture the White House and both chambers of Congress.
'Any of those things in isolation I would be skeptical about. I would be cautious about,' Carville said of his ideas.
'I would say, 'Well, I don't know if that's the greatest idea in the world, you're opening Pandora's Box.' If you want to save democracy, I think you got to do all of those things because we just are moving further and further away from being anything close to democracy,' he added.
The process to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court would be a steep climb, as the number has been in place since 1865. Congress would need to approve the move. Democrats introduced a bill in 2021 and 2023 seeking to expand the court, but both efforts failed.
The argument for D.C. statehood remains a pressing conversation in Washington.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) serves as a delegate for the District but can only vote in committees and cannot participate in floor votes. The same guidelines apply to Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Pablo Jose Hernandez (D).
President Trump's recent qualms with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) and crime rates have frustrated local leaders who are seeking to ensure the city remains under its own authority instead of federal enforcement.
Under the Home Rule Act, the president can take the helm of local functions, including D.C. police, if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' And after an attack on a former government employee, Trump said he is evaluating a course of action.
'We're considering it yeah, because the crime is ridiculous,' Trump said when asked if he was considering federalizing the Metropolitan Police Department.
'We want to have a great, safe capital. And we're going to have it. And that includes cleanliness and that includes other things,' Trump added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Pundit James Carville apologizes and pulls video suggesting a Melania Trump ‘Epstein connection'
Democratic strategist James Carville publicly apologized Thursday for posting a video suggesting some sort of 'Epstein connection' involving first lady Melania Trump. The 80-year-old pundit issued the mea culpa at the start of his latest 'Politics War Room' podcast episode, noting that he also took down and edited the offending video after hearing from the first lady's attorney. 3 Melania Trump has aggressively defended herself from allegations she was introduced to her husband by Jeffrey Epstein. AP 'In last week's podcast episode, we spoke with Judd Legum. After the episode, we received a letter from Melania Trump's lawyer. He took issue with our title of one of those YouTube videos from that episode and a couple of comments I made about the first lady,' Carville explained. 'We took a look at what they complained about, and we took down the video and edited out those comments from the episode,' he continued. 'I also take back these statements and apologize,' Carville, sounding like he was reading a prepared statement, added. Melania shared a transcript of Carville's apology on X – along with a screenshot of the pulled video with a red 'X' across it. The YouTube clip was titled: 'James Carville: The Epstein Connection – Trump & Melania.' It's unclear what specific claims made by the former Bill Clinton campaign manager peeved the first lady's legal team since the offending comments have been scrubbed. 3 Carville noted that the edits and apology were made after he heard from Melania's lawyer. Getty Images Carville's retraction and apology follows lefty news website Daily Beast taking down a Melania story last week after the outlet was contacted by her lawyers. 'After this story was published, The Beast received a letter from First Lady Melania Trump's attorney challenging the headline and framing of the article,' read the editor's note that replaced the article's text. 'After reviewing the matter, the Beast has taken down the article and apologizes for any confusion or misunderstanding,' the note continued. 3 Melania shared Carville's apology on X. X / @MELANIATRUMP The retracted article highlighted dubious claims by author Michael Wolff that a modeling agent connected to notorious sex predator Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania to her husband, President Trump. In her self-titled 2024 memoir, Melania explained that she met Trump at a September 1998 Fashion Week party at the Kit Kat Klub in New York City. Trump sat down next to his future wife and started a conversation, Melania recalled. 'I found myself drawn to his magnetic energy,' she wrote. The Trumps got engaged six years later and married in 2005.
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Tariff Victory Is Not What It Seems
It looks as though President Trump is winning the trade wars. Deals with the European Union, Japan, Britain and many other trading partners, which went into effect on Thursday, seem heavily one-sided. The United States gets to impose tariffs on imports from other countries and they agree to drop their tariffs on some U.S. imports to zero, buy more U.S. energy and other products and commit to increasing their investments in the United States. In the end the victory will be Pyrrhic, especially for U.S. households and businesses and for America itself, given the expected damage to its relationships with other countries and its standing in the world. There is little clarity about the meaning of countries' agreements to invest more in the United States. Moreover, few of the deals have been signed. And Mr. Trump's unilateral imposition of tariffs, usurping congressional power, faces legal challenges. Hopes that the tariffs will help create jobs and bring down the U.S. trade deficit might also be hurt by other Trump policies. Many businesses, such as American automakers, may be left worse off relative to their foreign competition because they face high tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, as well as engines and other components. And since it is far from clear that the trade deals negotiated so far will stick, the uncertainty will crimp business investment. None of this is good for job growth. Will the trade deficit improve, at least? Certainly, imports ought to shrink as tariff barriers go up. But this is another case in which Mr. Trump's actions will make things worse. In the past, U.S. exports related to tourism, education and financial services helped offset a good chunk of the trade deficit on manufactured products. Mr. Trump's attacks on U.S. educational institutions and his harsh anti-immigration policies will deter students and tourists from coming to the United States, hurting such service exports. Ever larger government budget deficits suggest that the United States will still be living beyond its means. The profligacy of the U.S. government (and consumers) will result in higher imports, while borrowing from the rest of the world to finance that consumption will drive up the dollar, dampening exports and keeping trade deficits high. Why are other major powers genuflecting to Mr. Trump? Even as growth in the U.S. economy is losing momentum, other economies are in worse shape and far more dependent on exports. Losing access to U.S. consumers, particularly at a time when their other export markets are foundering, would damage their economies. Countries securing deals are celebrating 10 percent to 15 percent tariffs as an improvement over the higher tariffs that Mr. Trump had threatened. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Harvard and Trump admin await judge's decision as deadline ticks closer
As Harvard University is in talks with the Trump administration over a potential deal or settlement, the university is waiting with bated breath to hear the decision of a federal judge over canceled government funding for the university. The institution requested that Judge Allison D. Burroughs make a decision before September 3, when much of the damage from the Trump administration's billions in research grant and other funding cuts would be irreversible. Burroughs has yet to make a decision since a court date on July 21 during oral arguments, when she said she will get an opinion out as soon as possible. However, during the court date, she expressed her uncertainty with the Trump administration's actions, calling the lawyer's arguments 'a little bit mind-boggling.' During the hearing, Burroughs pushed back on whether the federal government could cancel grants across the institution en masse without substantially proving that researchers or labs had engaged in antisemitism. She added that the 'consequences of that in terms of the constitutional law are staggering to me.' President Donald Trump, for his part, took to Truth Social to take aim at Burroughs the same day, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER' and an 'automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country.' He also signaled that the federal government would appeal her decision if she sides with Harvard. Legal experts believe the case could wind up going as far as the Supreme Court. Read more: Is Harvard considering a $500M deal with Trump? Faculty don't think so Harvard's second lawsuit over the federal government's attacks against international students is more settled. Read more: Trump admin appeals federal judge's decision rejecting ban of foreign Harvard students Burroughs granted two preliminary injunctions related to the case in late June. One preliminary injunction rejects a Trump administration attempt to ban Harvard foreign students from entering the country to study. This decision was appealed by the Trump administration and will now go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The other preliminary injunction allows Harvard to host international students. No appeal has been filed on that decision. What has happened between the Trump admin and Harvard? The Trump administration has gone after Harvard since April, cutting billions of dollars. Demanding an overhaul of Harvard's leadership structure, admissions and hiring — the federal government warned the school could risk losing $9 billion in funding. Harvard rejected those demands, stating they seek to 'invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court.' Then the fight over funding occurred. It began with a $2.2 billion funding freeze on April 14 after the school refused to comply with the federal administration's demands. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit on April 21, arguing that its constitutional rights had been violated by the government's threats to pull billions of dollars in funding. Harvard President Garber also signed onto a letter with hundreds of other university presidents pushing back against 'government overreach and political interference' by the Trump administration. At the beginning of May, the Trump administration said it would bar Harvard University from acquiring new federal grants while the school continues to refuse to comply with the administration's demands for change on its campus. A few days later, eight federal agencies cut $450 million in grants and then the United States Department of Health and Human Services cut $60 million in grants from the university. Harvard went on to amend its lawsuit against the Trump administration. Read more: Trump used her story to attack Harvard. She says 'don't destroy the university in my name' On May 16, a wave of nearly one thousand federal research grant terminations began, amounting to more than $2.4 billion, according to an analysis by Nature. In response, Harvard established a new Presidential Priorities Fund, asking for donations in the midst of federal cuts. Some of Harvard's schools, including its School of Public Health, took to social media to ask for donations after nearly every single federal grant had been terminated. Other investigations and threats have been made against the institution, some of which have focused on threatening the university's ability to enroll international students. This prompted Harvard to open a second lawsuit against the Trump administration over its ability to accept international students. Most recently, the State Department opened an investigation into Harvard University's use of international visas. The Department of Homeland Security has also subpoenaed Harvard over its failure to provide documents concerning the misconduct or criminal actions of foreign students. More Higher Ed 'They fear deportation': University student newspaper sues Trump admin over free speech Is Harvard considering a $500M deal with Trump? Faculty don't think so Here's who is pushing Trump to upend higher ed — and what they want Trump admin brings Harvard antisemitism case to Justice Dept. after 'fruitless' discussions Trump used her story to attack Harvard. She says 'don't destroy the university in my name' Read the original article on MassLive.
