Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) on Sunday called for an expansion of the Supreme Court's nine justices to 13, calling that increase a "pretty good number." "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker asked Clyburn if he agreed with former Vice…
Page B1From§Eachthe early evening edition — 30 August 2026
Clyburn rues defending Clarence Thomas, calls a 13-justice Supreme Court 'a pretty good number.'
As it ran on the front
OBITUARY: THE NINE-JUSTICE SUPREME COURT (1869–2026)
Born in the Judiciary Act of 1869, at nine members, where it stayed for one hundred fifty-seven years through wars, depressions, and several bad Tuesdays. Survived by the concept of judicial restraint, which was already living in a nursing home. Preceded in death by the practice of weighing a nominee's record before confirming him.…
…(cont) Representative James Clyburn, who once defended Justice Clarence Thomas on the record, told The Hill this week that thirteen justices is 'a pretty good number.' He did not say what changed. The record does not require him to. Cause of death, per the family, was complications from having watched the thing happen up close.
This paper does not take a position on the correct number of Supreme Court justices. It notes only that the number under discussion moved from nine to thirteen inside the span of one man's political memory, and that the man doing the discussing spent years telling voters the nine were fine. That is not an accusation. That is the transcript.
The nine-justice court leaves behind a robe, a building with a great deal of marble in it, and a habit, dating to 1869, of changing seat count only when the changing party finds it useful. This has happened before. It will happen again. Nobody involved considers this malarkey, which is itself the whippersnapper's tell — the people who remember the last time are mostly gone, and the ones who aren't are on cable news explaining why this time is different.
A quorum of nine was never a law of physics. It was a habit Congress kept because keeping it was easier than fighting about it. The fighting has started. It will not be settled by an obituary, and it will not be settled by Mr. Clyburn's arithmetic either, which is thirteen today and was nine as recently as his defense of Justice Thomas.
In lieu of flowers, the family asks that mourners call their own representative and ask them, on the record, what number they believe in — and whether they believed a different one last year. Get the answer in writing. Habits change quietly. Records don't, unless somebody lets them.
“Same senator who bragged about protecting Clarence Thomas now wants five more justices on the bench — that's not conviction, that's a receipt for regret. When the referee finally admits the game was rigged, the fix isn't a press release, it's a new number of refs.”
“Look, Congressman Clyburn stood by a sitting justice because that's what institutional respect looks like — did I say 'stood by'? He's now calling for four more seats on the same court, which isn't exactly consistent with respecting the institution as it stands. That's not our talking point, that's just what the man said.”
The receipts
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) voiced his support for expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices and lamented his defense of Clarence Thomas during the conservative justice’s confirmation in 1991. In an appearance on NBC News’s Meet the Press…
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.