$18 Million Plot BEFORE Trump Picks Anyone

Hands typing on a laptop keyboard with floating email icons

Former Vice President Kamala Harris is rallying dark-money donors to block Supreme Court nominees who don’t even exist yet, launching an unprecedented attack on the constitutional nomination process before President Trump has made a single appointment.

Story Snapshot

Harris endorses Demand Justice’s $18 million campaign to preemptively oppose Trump Supreme Court nominees targeting potential retirements of Justices Thomas and Alito
Dark-money group plans $3 million initial spending with $15 million more if vacancies arise, despite no current openings on the Court
Strategy represents escalation from traditional confirmation battles to blocking nominees “before they happen,” raising constitutional concerns
Demand Justice previously pushed Justice Breyer’s retirement and advocates expanding Supreme Court from nine to thirteen justices

Harris Declares War on Phantom Nominees

Kamala Harris posted on X that “We must be clear eyed about what is at stake with the Supreme Court right now. We cannot allow Donald Trump to hand pick one, if not two, additional justices. The nation’s highest court must be stopped from becoming even more beholden to him.” The statement promotes Demand Justice’s multimillion-dollar opposition campaign despite zero current vacancies on the Supreme Court. This marks a disturbing shift from opposing actual nominees during confirmation hearings to attacking the constitutional appointment process itself before it begins.

Dark Money Fuels Preemptive Strike

Demand Justice President Josh Orton announced plans to spend $3 million immediately, with potential escalation to $18 million total if vacancies materialize. The progressive advocacy group targets possible retirements by Justices Clarence Thomas, 77, and Samuel Alito, 76, though neither has announced retirement plans. The organization emerged after the 2018 midterms specifically to fund opposition against conservative nominees and push radical court reforms. Their track record includes pressuring Justice Stephen Breyer into retirement in 2022 and consistently advocating to pack the Supreme Court by expanding it from nine to thirteen justices.

Constitutional Process Under Siege

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley characterized Harris’s endorsement as a “radical” strategy that undermines constitutional norms governing judicial appointments. The Constitution grants presidents authority to nominate Supreme Court justices with Senate advice and consent, a process Democrats now seek to obstruct before it even begins. Without Senate control to block confirmations through traditional channels, progressives are turning to donor-funded advertising campaigns and public pressure tactics. This approach fundamentally differs from legitimate constitutional opposition during actual confirmation processes, instead attempting to delegitimize presidential appointment powers preemptively.

History of Judicial Obstruction

Harris voted against Trump’s previous Supreme Court nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh during her Senate tenure, claiming she foresaw they would overturn Roe v. Wade despite assurances to senators like Susan Collins. The 2022 Dobbs decision validated her skepticism but also revealed the high stakes Democrats perceive in future appointments. Trump’s three appointments created the current 6-3 conservative majority, fundamentally shifting the Court’s ideological balance. Harris’s current preemptive opposition campaign represents an escalation beyond her previous confirmation battle tactics to a wholesale assault on the nomination process itself.

Erosion of Judicial Independence

The dark-money campaign threatens to further politicize an already contentious confirmation process, normalizing opposition to nominees before they’re even selected. Demand Justice’s history of court-packing advocacy adds another troubling dimension, suggesting the goal extends beyond blocking individual nominees to fundamentally restructuring the judicial branch. With Democrats lacking Senate power to defeat nominations through constitutional means, the turn to outside pressure campaigns funded by anonymous donors represents government by mob rather than constitutional process. This strategy, if successful, would establish dangerous precedent allowing wealthy interests to veto presidential appointment powers through advertising blitzes rather than legitimate legislative opposition.