Failed Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris used a friendly sit-down with former CNN anchor Don Lemon to lay out an aggressive blueprint for reshaping Americas constitutional order if she gets another shot at the White House.
According to Gateway Pundit, Harris, who has been openly signaling since April that she is eyeing another presidential run, spoke with Lemon about expanding the Supreme Court, altering Senate rules, and shaking up the Electoral College system.
The conversation, framed as a reflection on the 2024 election and the current political climate, instead became a window into the lefts long-standing frustration with constitutional guardrails that limit raw majoritarian power.
Harris made clear that her top institutional target is the Supreme Court, which has issued a series of rulings in recent years that restored constitutional limits and frustrated progressive ambitions.
On the Court, she declared, Ive been saying for quite some time I think that we absolutely have to explore what we need to do because of this Supreme Court and what it has done to destroy so many of the elements of the Constitution that were designed to protect, in particular, the minority, those who were marginalized, including expansion of the Supreme Court.
Her solution is not to persuade voters or win durable legislative majorities, but to change the rules of the game by adding four new justices to the high court.
She told Lemon that she wants to pack the Supreme Court with four more justices to help push through far-left priorities such as statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, a move that would almost certainly hand Democrats four additional Senate seats and tilt the balance of power for a generation.
Harris was explicit about her support for a 13-member Court, aligning its size with the number of federal circuit courts.
I absolutely believe that we should be exploiting that, and the idea of 13, I agree, because there are 13 circuit courts, 13 justices, she said, adding, I think that we should be looking at statehood for Puerto Rico and DC.
She went further, calling for new Senate Judiciary Committee rules that would punish Supreme Court nominees whom Democrats accuse of lying during confirmation hearings.
I think we should be looking at when we win the majority in the House and in the Senate for the Senate Judiciary to have and to create rules that include that if there is a nominee to the Supreme Court before them, who is clearly lying that there be some consequence, and that we say to Democrats, at the very least, who are members of Senate Judiciary, that you need to be prepared to actually put some rules in place and enforce them if people come before you and are breaking the ethical rules of responsibility around taking an oath and telling the truth to that committee, she continued.
Harris reiterated that court-packing remains firmly on the table for her partys future agenda.
I think theres a lot of work that we need to do, including considering an expansion of the court, yes, she said, underscoring how normalized this once-fringe idea has become within Democratic circles.
The conversation then turned to the Electoral College, a constitutional mechanism long despised by the left because it forces presidential candidates to build broad, geographically diverse coalitions rather than simply running up votes in deep-blue urban centers.
When asked about the Electoral College, Harris offered an opaque and meandering response, saying she wants to look at and do some real shaking up of the current system, while adding, I dont think we should eliminate that.
Pressed again, she doubled down on the idea that the system itself needs to be reexamined, even if she stopped short of calling for its outright abolition.
I think we need to look at that, too, yes, yes, I do, Kamala said, leaving little doubt that Democrats see structural change, not persuasion, as their path back to power.
Lemon, for his part, appeared to ignore the basic facts of the 2024 race, in which Donald Trump won the popular vote, all seven swing states, and a decisive 312 Electoral College votes to Harriss 226, while Republicans secured majorities in both the House and the Senate.
Despite that clear mandate, Lemon insisted that the country is somehow being ruled by a fringe faction, claiming that the current leadership does not reflect the will of most people.
However, despite a large majority of the country voting for the current federal leadership, its clear to me, Lemon said, that we are being governed by a minority in this country because most people in this country arent as extreme as the folks who are theyre not MAGA, theyre not extreme right.
Lemon continued, It seems like were moving into, because of this minority, into Christian nationalism and into having the majority of Americans freedoms diminished or restricted because were being governed by the minority.
Rather than challenging this narrative, Harris embraced it and used it to justify sweeping institutional change.
Yes, and I think that there is some real shaking up that we have to do of the rules and the structure, she replied, prompting Lemon to ask, and is that get rid of the Electoral College?
Harris, aware that she lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2024, stopped short of endorsing the outright dismantling of the system that delivered her defeat.
I think we should that should be a discussion that we should have. I dont think we should eliminate that as a point of discussion for potential action, she responded, before drifting into a familiar word salad about civic engagement and turnout.
She conceded that low Democratic turnout, not just the structure of the system, contributed to her loss.
When you talk about it being a minority of people, who may be responsible for the things that are happening that are contrary to our democracy, I dont disagree with that, but a parallel point has to be for all of us, how are we going to better engage a larger group of people to be active participants in our democracy? she said.
Harris then shifted blame to what she called the status quo, arguing that it has not been working for a lot of people for a long time, even though she herself was a central figure in that very status quo as vice president.
She effectively admitted that the Democrats failure to perform and to meet the needs of ordinary Americans during her tenure in office played a major role in their electoral defeat.
Weve got to take a look in the mirror and also ask, what do we need to do better, especially those who have been in government to actually perform in a way that meets the needs of the people, she said, acknowledging shortcomings while still pushing for radical institutional change.
For conservatives, her remarks serve as a stark reminder that the lefts response to electoral losses is not to moderate its agenda, but to target the very constitutional structureslike the Supreme Court and the Electoral Collegethat were designed to check concentrated power and protect the long-term stability of the republic.
Login