Trump Slams Holder’s Court-Packing Plan: ‘Leftist Judges Will Destroy Constitution!’

Paul Riverbank, 12/2/2025Trump and Holder clash over Supreme Court reform, igniting debate on legitimacy, partisanship, and trust.

This time, Eric Holder, the former Attorney General, didn’t mince words. Stepping up to a microphone with the weight of recent legal skirmishes behind him, Holder described the Supreme Court as “a broken institution.” He wasn’t rehashing old grievances for drama’s sake. Instead, Holder pointed back to specific moments that stuck fast in the public’s mind: Merrick Garland’s stalled nomination in 2016, a move critics say upended decades of Senate precedent, and Amy Coney Barrett’s hasty confirmation just days before a presidential election in 2020. “These episodes created a crisis of legitimacy,” he argued in a tone more weary than theatrical. To Holder, the process has grown so partisan, even ordinary court-watchers have begun to question the rules themselves.

Reform, Holder argues, is less about revenge and more about restoring balance. When pressed, he doesn’t shy from bold ideas—perhaps increasing the number of justices, maybe shifting to 18-year terms so that every president has a fair shot at an appointment. He even floated the notion that no one should join the bench before turning 50. “It might shake loose fresh perspectives,” he mused in a recent radio interview, “and give Americans more faith that the law is not just predictable, but fair.”

Predictably, Donald Trump answered with the rhetorical equivalent of a thunderclap. Taking to his digital platform, Trump didn’t merely reject Holder’s proposals—he torched them. In Trump’s hands, the prospect of “court-packing” became a harbinger of chaos, “an attempt to flood the bench with radical leftist judges.” He invoked images of a Supreme Court swollen to 21 or even more—“Why stop at 15? Why not 21? Thirty?”—and warned that such changes would “destroy our Constitution.” For Trump and many conservatives, the Court represents a last line of defense against partisan tides; court expansion, they say, would be like tearing down the levees just to win the next political storm.

Beyond the bluster, the timing of this latest clash is far from coincidental. Just weeks ago, the Supreme Court handed down a decision granting broad immunity to presidents for official acts. For Holder and allies, the ruling exacerbates what they see as the Court’s slide into political territory. It’s not just about Garland and Barrett anymore—now, they say, the Court appears to bend beneath the pressures of party and personality. The decision, critics argue, grants leaders—Trump, if he returns—a freer hand than many are comfortable with. On the flip side, supporters believe the immunity is a necessary brake on constant legal entanglement that could cripple the executive branch. Both sides insist their position protects democracy, though each defines that idea differently.

Down-shifting for a moment—it’s worth noting how these debates play out beyond the corridors of power. Most ordinary Americans don’t start their day parsing the history of judicial appointments, but the tumult seeps down all the same. A pollster in Iowa or a school principal in Georgia might not speak the language of “institutional legitimacy,” yet they notice when each new decision sparks louder protests and accusations. Gallup’s latest poll found trust in the Supreme Court scraping historic lows. The Garland-block and Barrett-rush have become shorthand for a larger story: that every seat on the Court is now a partisan battleground, not a point of national consensus.

Ideas for fixing it abound—some as old as the judiciary itself. Expanding the number of justices gets the biggest headlines, but term limits, minimum ages, even rotating jurists on and off the highest bench have all been floated by reform advocates. For them, the point isn’t revenge or payback; it’s about patching confidence in a system everyone depends on, however abstract it might feel.

Conservatives, for their part, issue dark warnings about unleashing tit-for-tat reforms. Today, the left threatens to expand the Court. Tomorrow, the right retaliates. Soon, the bench could resemble a revolving door, its decisions increasingly viewed through a red or blue lens. The safeguards that keep American government stable, they caution, could falter if reforms are rushed or made for short-term gain.

At root, the question isn’t just who sits on the Court, but whether Americans can still believe in the institution’s restraint and judgment. Trump’s supporters echo his demand that leaders “get things done,” and see the Court’s current configuration as a check against overreach—by anyone. Holder, though, sees a yawning gap between the Court’s historic mission and its current reality. “If nothing changes, I worry the Court drifts even further from serving the people,” he cautioned in Chicago, echoing the unease of many who grew up believing in the Court’s impartial wisdom.

The noise isn’t likely to die down soon. Deep mistrust underpins the latest round of proposals and rebukes. Whether the Supreme Court emerges changed, or the latest debate ends up just another chapter in America’s long political tussle, one thing is clear: questions of legitimacy and leadership are no longer the concern of legal scholars alone—they’re headline news. And for a divided country, the answers won’t come easy—or quickly.

Supreme Court reform rarely slips quietly into the national conversation, but the latest collision between Eric Holder and Donald Trump has sent the issue rocketing back onto front pages and talk shows. The stakes? Nothing less than trust in America’s highest court—though, it depends on whom you ask.This time, Eric Holder, the former Attorney General, didn’t mince words. Stepping up to a microphone with the weight of recent legal skirmishes behind him, Holder described the Supreme Court as “a broken institution.” He wasn’t rehashing old grievances for drama’s sake. Instead, Holder pointed back to specific moments that stuck fast in the public’s mind: Merrick Garland’s stalled nomination in 2016, a move critics say upended decades of Senate precedent, and Amy Coney Barrett’s hasty confirmation just days before a presidential election in 2020. “These episodes created a crisis of legitimacy,” he argued in a tone more weary than theatrical. To Holder, the process has grown so partisan, even ordinary court-watchers have begun to question the rules themselves.Reform, Holder argues, is less about revenge and more about restoring balance. When pressed, he doesn’t shy from bold ideas—perhaps increasing the number of justices, maybe shifting to 18-year terms so that every president has a fair shot at an appointment. He even floated the notion that no one should join the bench before turning 50. “It might shake loose fresh perspectives,” he mused in a recent radio interview, “and give Americans more faith that the law is not just predictable, but fair.”Predictably, Donald Trump answered with the rhetorical equivalent of a thunderclap. Taking to his digital platform, Trump didn’t merely reject Holder’s proposals—he torched them. In Trump’s hands, the prospect of “court-packing” became a harbinger of chaos, “an attempt to flood the bench with radical leftist judges.” He invoked images of a Supreme Court swollen to 21 or even more—“Why stop at 15? Why not 21? Thirty?”—and warned that such changes would “destroy our Constitution.” For Trump and many conservatives, the Court represents a last line of defense against partisan tides; court expansion, they say, would be like tearing down the levees just to win the next political storm.Beyond the bluster, the timing of this latest clash is far from coincidental. Just weeks ago, the Supreme Court handed down a decision granting broad immunity to presidents for official acts. For Holder and allies, the ruling exacerbates what they see as the Court’s slide into political territory. It’s not just about Garland and Barrett anymore—now, they say, the Court appears to bend beneath the pressures of party and personality. The decision, critics argue, grants leaders—Trump, if he returns—a freer hand than many are comfortable with. On the flip side, supporters believe the immunity is a necessary brake on constant legal entanglement that could cripple the executive branch. Both sides insist their position protects democracy, though each defines that idea differently.Down-shifting for a moment—it’s worth noting how these debates play out beyond the corridors of power. Most ordinary Americans don’t start their day parsing the history of judicial appointments, but the tumult seeps down all the same. A pollster in Iowa or a school principal in Georgia might not speak the language of “institutional legitimacy,” yet they notice when each new decision sparks louder protests and accusations. Gallup’s latest poll found trust in the Supreme Court scraping historic lows. The Garland-block and Barrett-rush have become shorthand for a larger story: that every seat on the Court is now a partisan battleground, not a point of national consensus.Ideas for fixing it abound—some as old as the judiciary itself. Expanding the number of justices gets the biggest headlines, but term limits, minimum ages, even rotating jurists on and off the highest bench have all been floated by reform advocates. For them, the point isn’t revenge or payback; it’s about patching confidence in a system everyone depends on, however abstract it might feel.Conservatives, for their part, issue dark warnings about unleashing tit-for-tat reforms. Today, the left threatens to expand the Court. Tomorrow, the right retaliates. Soon, the bench could resemble a revolving door, its decisions increasingly viewed through a red or blue lens. The safeguards that keep American government stable, they caution, could falter if reforms are rushed or made for short-term gain.At root, the question isn’t just who sits on the Court, but whether Americans can still believe in the institution’s restraint and judgment. Trump’s supporters echo his demand that leaders “get things done,” and see the Court’s current configuration as a check against overreach—by anyone. Holder, though, sees a yawning gap between the Court’s historic mission and its current reality. “If nothing changes, I worry the Court drifts even further from serving the people,” he cautioned in Chicago, echoing the unease of many who grew up believing in the Court’s impartial wisdom.The noise isn’t likely to die down soon. Deep mistrust underpins the latest round of proposals and rebukes. Whether the Supreme Court emerges changed, or the latest debate ends up just another chapter in America’s long political tussle, one thing is clear: questions of legitimacy and leadership are no longer the concern of legal scholars alone—they’re headline news. And for a divided country, the answers won’t come easy—or quickly.