Hakeem Jeffries Just Told You Exactly What Democrats Will Do to the Supreme Court — Believe Him
The Democrat Party of the 1970s and 1980s is gone. Dead and buried. It’s been taken over by ‘Democrats’ who want to govern our country in a manner that our founders found anathema to enduring freedom and prosperity.
For 157 years, nine justices have sat on the Supreme Court of the United States. The number isn’t in the Constitution, but it has endured through every political wave, every partisan fight, and even FDR’s catastrophic attempt to pack it in 1937 — an overreach so obvious that his own party killed it in Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries just announced he’d like to finish what Roosevelt started.
Speaking at the National Black Journalism Conference in Atlanta Wednesday, the House Minority Leader made clear that if Democrats win Congress in November, the Supreme Court as Americans know it will not survive intact. “Dramatic Supreme Court reform is necessary,” he said. “There’s a variety of different options on the table and we can’t foreclose any of them.”
He wants to hand the project to Jamie Raskin — one of the most radical left-wing lunatics in Congress who served as lead impeachment manager in the Democrats’ second failed attempt to impeach and remove President Trump, who sat on the notoriously compromised J6 Committee alongside TDS-afflicted RINOs Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, and who is about as far from a neutral arbiter of constitutional questions as any member of Congress currently serving.
Let’s name what Jeffries is actually proposing. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has been handing down decisions actually based on what the Constitution says, but which Democrats despise — on abortion, on gun rights, on election integrity, on agency power. Democrats cannot win those arguments on the merits (because they are either meritless or simply unconstitutional). So their solution is to change the game: add four or five left-wing justices, confirm them on a party-line vote, and transform the Court from a constitutional check on legislative and executive overreach into a rubber stamp for whatever Democrats want to do.
This is not judicial reform. It is judicial capture. The moment you can add justices whenever you lose too many cases, the Court’s independence — the only thing that makes its rulings legitimate — ceases to exist. What you have instead is a super-legislature with lifetime appointments and no elections, stocked by whichever party happened to control the Senate when the seats were created.
Roosevelt understood this was wrong in 1937 and dropped it when his own party revolted. The Democratic Party of 2026 has no such compunction. They put it in a progressive caucus resolution. Jeffries confirmed it on camera. The DSA co-chair put abolishing the Court entirely in their platform.
This is what a Democratic House majority in November actually means. Not investigations and impeachment theater — though that too. This. The systematic dismantling of every institutional check that has stood between the left’s agenda and its implementation, starting with the Court that has been blocking it.
Every election is called the most crucial ever. In this case, it actually is. The future of the integrity of the Supreme Court is on the ballot in November. Hakeem Jeffries just confirmed it publicly.
Shocking 'truth' behind Prince Harry's decision to quit major role
Prince Harry should have "resigned in disgrace" from the board of a controversial African wildlife charity, a commentator says. James Walker makes the bombshell remark in Wednesday's episode of this publication's podcast, Daily Expresso.
He and the show's host, JJ Anisiobi, delve into the Duke of Sussex's dramatic decision to step down from African Parks. James, commenting on the controversy, said: "When you hear about this stuff and how long it's been going on for, you should be resigning in disgrace. [Harry] should be saying: 'I'm not touching that with a barge pole. That is a failed entity. We're going nowhere near it'.
"But no. He's still saying he's going to 'support their mission'. And again this Caroline Pearce, executive director of Survival International, goes on to say: 'His departure doesn't undo that record'.
"She alleged that African Parks was aware of the abuses for years, but it was only after Survival complained to Harry that the charity finally commissioned an investigation."
James added: "Well, she's got a point."
It emerged on Monday (August 24) that Harry was no longer a board member of the wildlife charity.
The conservation organisation has admitted that human rights abuses were committed by its rangers against members of the semi-nomadic Baka group in Congo-Brazzaville.
African Parks has said since that it has improved its safeguarding processes both in the Odzala-Kokoua National Park and institutionally.
Its admission followed an independent human rights investigation into allegations guards managed and paid by the charity had beaten, raped and tortured indigenous people in Odzala-Kokoua National Park.
Harry was president of the charity for six years before he became a member of its board of directors in 2023.
A spokesman for the Duke said he remains an active and avid supporter of African Parks. He added: "The Duke is proud of his 10 years with African Parks and fully supports the ongoing strengthening of its board.
"His commitment to conservation in Africa continues and he remains a supporter of African Parks’ mission."
Human rights organisation, Survival International, said it had been calling on Harry to step down from African Parks for years.
The group's director, Caroline Pearce, said in a statement: "It’s outrageous that for 10 years Prince Harry has served African Parks while the organisation has been responsible for abuse and violence against Indigenous people.
"His departure doesn't undo that record — African Parks itself must now be held accountable, and must abandon this model of fortress conservation for good."
Survival International said indigenous peoples know how best to manage their land and the idea outsiders know better is racist and colonial.
Iran TV Airs Sick Threat Against Barron Trump, Reports of $10M Bounty
Iranian state media aired an insane video about killing Barron Trump, along with reporting a $10 million bounty on his head ... and it's sure to get President Donald Trump's attention.
Play video content
CAUSE FOR CONCERN
Video: Iran TV Broadcasts Disturbing Threat Against Barron Trump, Reports $10M Bounty
The "Where to kill Barron Trump" clip says Barron's movements are being "fully monitored" while he's attending New York University ... and claims Barron's accounts for Xbox and Discord have been hacked.
The video goes into depth about what Barron wears ... and what his bodyguards wear. It also alleges his travel habits.
Per reports, the f-ed-up video is tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ... and it's a big-time escalation in the threats coming out of Iran toward Trump as the war rages on.
The chilling video aired amid Trump ratcheting up pressure on Iran to finally crack ... his latest measure, dubbed "economic D-Day,” is meant to cripple Iran's economy.
The video might just be a BS scary tactic ... but it's still pretty freaking unnerving for the 20-year-old college student.
Chaos around Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s future as ‘six month plan’ revealed
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are just days away from relocating back to Britain with their children.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle may be relocating back to the UK in a matter of days, however, they may not actually be staying here permanently. Just last week, it was reported that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, alongside their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, will be moving back to Britain.
It was reported that the children had already been enrolled on British schools, with the exact name and location of the school not revealed. It was also reported that the family would live in a private, non-royal residence, with the location kept private for security reasons. The motive behind the move was not reported.
While many think this means the Sussex family will be back in the UK - the country they once criticised very publicly - someone close to the couple has revealed that it could actually only be temporary.
The source told The Times: “It’ll be an extended period of time — it could be six months, it could be a year, it could be more — I don’t think even they know yet.
“They might suddenly go: ‘Why don’t we try Canada for a while? Why don’t we try Australia?’ It’s one of the great things about being private individuals [that they can live where they choose].”
The family has spent the last six years living in Montecito, California (Image: Instagram / @meghan)
Harry and Meghan themselves have not released a statement on their upcoming move back to Harry’s home country.
Rumours have been swirling about why they are relocating, with some people believing it is due to Harry’s desire to be close to King Charles.
Other reports suggest that Meghan has been offered an acting role based in Britain, although there is no official confirmation.
The family are reportedly set to fly over from California before the end of August, allowing the children to settle before they start at their new school. It has been reported that the family will keep their Montecito home in America, and their Portugal holiday home. It has also been reported that the family's chickens will stay at the Montecito home, while the family's two dogs are expected to fly over to the UK with them.
