Bernie-Backed Candidate Calls To Pack SCOTUS, Impeach Justices

The following article examines Maine Senate hopeful Graham Platner’s recent comments on the Supreme Court, the reaction at a local campaign event, and context about controversies that have roiled his campaign, including prior controversial posts and a now-covered tattoo.

Maine Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner made headlines after telling a Somerset County audience that the Supreme Court should be treated like “the political action wing” of conservatism, and his remarks did not sound like old gaffes dug up from the past. These were remarks he made in public at a campaign stop on Saturday, not recycled statements from years ago. The comments quickly drew sharp criticism because they called for aggressive actions against sitting justices and structural changes to the court.

At that Somerset County event, Platner framed the court as a partisan institution and urged Democrats in the Senate to use their powers to respond. He complained the Court “is not functioning as a constitutional body” and suggested Senate Democrats either do not recognize or are unwilling to use their authority. Those in attendance responded with audible agreement and applause, signaling support for a confrontational approach.

Platner argued that a future Democratic Senate majority should use “every single lever of power” available to it to confront the Supreme Court, and he pushed for robust ethics oversight. He said the Senate can set its own rules and create oversight mechanisms, implying those options are underused. His specific prescriptions included court expansion plans and pursuing impeachment and removal of sitting justices, proposals that shift the debate from legal reform to political retaliation.

“We are going to have to start treating the Supreme Court like the political action wing that it has become of conservatism,” Platner told the group of Somerset County Democrats, and in the background, you can hear people agreeing with him.

“It is not functioning as a constitutional body,” he added, without providing any examples to back up his claims. “And it’s very frustrating for me that there are…I think there are Democrats in the Senate that either do not understand or don’t want to understand the power they actually have.”

Platner went further, saying he supports stacking the Court and removing “at least two” sitting justices, a stance that drew cheers from supporters at the event. That level of hostility toward the judiciary risks normalizing the idea that courts should be reshaped to fit political winds rather than to interpret the law. On a practical level, pursuing impeachment for political reasons would deepen institutional fractures and invite tit-for-tat retaliation if power changes hands again.

Comments like these highlight a broader pattern in parts of the Democratic coalition that favors weaponizing institutions in pursuit of partisan goals. Guy Benson observed that “Their left flank wants to destroy our institutions, and it’s unclear if their establishment can (or even wants to) stop them.” Those are alarmed words from a conservative commentator pointing to a potential breakdown in long-standing norms that protect judicial independence.

The concern is not limited to rhetoric about the courts. Platner’s campaign has faced a string of controversies that have undermined his credibility and raised questions about his judgment. Reports of past online posts where he boasted about communist sympathies, disparaged law enforcement, and made racially insensitive remarks have surfaced, feeding a narrative of a candidate at odds with mainstream voters in Maine.

On top of those revelations came the disclosure of a Nazi-themed tattoo that Platner reportedly had, which he later covered. That detail provoked additional scrutiny and outrage, and it has not been fully explained away for many observers. For a candidate seeking a U.S. Senate seat, a record of inflammatory online behavior and symbolic associations like that tattoo are serious liabilities in a general election environment.

This combination of incendiary public statements and a history of problematic posts has allowed critics to paint the campaign as reckless and unfit for the responsibilities of a senator. The debate now centers on whether the Democratic establishment will rein in candidates who propose radical institutional changes, or whether the party will accommodate voices that promise sweeping, now-or-never reforms.

Platner’s backers argue his plans are a response to what they see as conservative dominance on the Supreme Court, but opponents counter that dismantling judicial norms would be a grave mistake. The clash over whether to pursue court-packing or impeachment as legitimate tools of political strategy reveals a deeper battle over how Americans govern and protect constitutional checks and balances.

For voters and political observers, the key question is whether aggressive tactics aimed at reshaping the judiciary will become accepted practice or remain on the fringe. The stakes are high: actions that weaken the Court’s independence could set a precedent that neither party can safely ignore when it regains power. That prospect has motivated a fierce response from conservatives who see such proposals as an existential threat to constitutional order.

Their left flank wants to destroy our institutions, and it’s unclear if their establishment can (or even wants to) stop them.