JONATHAN TURLEY: Shapiro’s Missed Opportunity in a Polarized Era
JONATHAN TURLEY – In a pivotal moment that echoes the iconic narrative of “On the Waterfront,” Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has chosen a path that aligns him with the most extreme factions of his own party. The movie’s protagonist, Terry Malloy, lamented his lost potential in a moment of despair, declaring, “You don’t understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender.” Shapiro’s decision on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” mirrors this sentiment, as he abandoned his principles to endorse a radical overhaul of the Supreme Court, effectively ceding power to the left-wing movement within the Democratic Party.
Shapiro’s Jewish Identity and Antisemitism Within the Party
Shapiro’s alignment with the court-packing agenda is particularly ironic, given his unique position as a Jewish candidate in a party increasingly accused of harboring antisemitic tendencies. His rejection as a vice presidential contender earlier this year was attributed to his Jewish heritage, a factor that now seems to have emboldened him to advocate for reforms that critics argue prioritize ideological purity over constitutional balance. This shift raises questions about whether his personal identity has become a catalyst for his broader political transformation.
“I think we need radical reform that’s actually going to ensure that the voices of the people are heard from, that the voices of the people are represented in the three branches of government,” Shapiro told MS NOW. “We don’t have that right now.”
While Shapiro’s words resonate with the sentiment of many on the left, they also highlight a growing disconnect between his rhetoric and the institution he seeks to reshape. The Supreme Court, historically a bastion of judicial independence, is now being rebranded as an obstacle to popular will—a narrative that has gained traction among progressive leaders. This perspective, however, risks undermining the very checks and balances the Court was designed to uphold.
Democratic Senator’s Allegations About GOP’s Influence on SCOTUS Selections
Shapiro’s call for reform follows a pattern set by other Democratic figures, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has long argued that the Court’s conservative leanings reflect a “hostile takeover” by the Republican Party. Warren’s claims, which assert that the GOP “stole” two Supreme Court seats in 2016 and 2020, underscore a broader perception of the judiciary as an extension of partisan politics. This view has fueled demands for expansion, with some arguing that the current Court’s decisions—particularly those favoring Republican priorities—have eroded public trust in its impartiality.
The Democratic Quest for a Radicalized Judiciary
Over the past decade, a coalition of progressive scholars and politicians has quietly championed the idea of transforming the Supreme Court into a more democratic body. Harvard professor Michael Klarman, for example, outlined a plan years ago to ensure that Republicans would “never win another election” by altering the Court’s composition. His vision, however, relied on the assumption that the Court would not strike down such changes—a belief that has now been tested in the current political climate.
Shapiro’s recent comments align with this strategy, which seeks to redefine the Court’s role as a reflection of popular opinion rather than an independent arbiter. The argument is that a court with a liberal majority would better represent the interests of marginalized communities and advance a progressive agenda. Yet, this approach has drawn criticism for its potential to destabilize the constitutional framework that has long protected minority rights from majority whims.
“We don’t have that right now,” Shapiro reiterated, framing the Court’s current composition as a barrier to justice. His remarks echo those of former Attorney General Eric Holder, who has made court expansion a central part of his advocacy, stating, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”
Political strategist James Carville’s endorsement of court expansion further illustrates the growing consensus among some Democrats. His blunt declaration—“If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F— it. Eat our dust.”—captures the urgency and ambition of the reform movement. Shapiro, once seen as a potential moderate voice, has now joined this chorus, signaling a departure from the centrist approach that once defined his career.
A Legacy of Constitutional Balance or a Path to Mobocracy?
Jonathan Turley’s book, Rage and the Republic, provides a critical lens through which to examine this debate. In it, he argues that the Founding Fathers deliberately designed the judiciary to act as a counter-majoritarian force, ensuring that the Constitution would not be entirely at the mercy of popular sentiment. This system, Turley explains, was meant to prevent the rise of a “mobocracy”—a government ruled by the crowd rather than by reasoned deliberation.
Yet, the current push for court expansion threatens to erode that balance. As the Democratic Party inches closer to a unified majority, the argument that the Court must reflect the will of the people has gained momentum. Shapiro’s support for this idea, however, has drawn sharp criticism from those who see it as a capitulation to radicalism. “He could have been that mature voice within his party cautioning restraint,” Turley noted, “but instead, he chose to join the ranks of those who see the Supreme Court as an enemy to be dismantled.”
Implications for the Future of American Governance
The stakes of this ideological shift are profound. By embracing court packing, Shapiro and his allies are not only reshaping the judiciary but also redefining the role of the Constitution in American democracy. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions—such as its ruling on birthright citizenship—have already demonstrated its capacity to influence major policy areas, and the prospect of a fully liberalized Court raises concerns about the potential for unchecked power.
While some view this as a necessary evolution, others warn of the dangers of creating a court that no longer functions as a check on majority rule. The balance of power, once a safeguard against tyranny, now faces the risk of becoming a tool for partisan dominance. As the Democratic Party moves toward this transformation, the question remains: Will it strengthen the Republic, or will it fracture it beyond repair?
In the end, Shapiro’s choice reflects a broader trend within the party: the pursuit of ideological victory at the expense of institutional integrity. His moment on “Morning Joe” was not just a personal concession but a symbolic act that underscores the growing influence of radical voices in shaping the future of American governance. Whether this marks the beginning of a new era or the end of a once-promising moderate leader remains to be seen, but one thing is clear—Shapiro’s path has been defined by compromise, not by the bold leadership he once seemed capable of.
