Rep. James Clyburn went on “Meet the Press” this weekend and did the thing politicians almost never do: he admitted he was wrong. Specifically, wrong about Clarence Thomas.
That’s a heavier admission for Clyburn than for most, because in 1991 he wasn’t a bystander to the Thomas confirmation. He was a character witness. Here’s what he told a panel of senators back then:
It’s a pleasure for me to be here today to present testimony in favor of my good friend Clarence Thomas. I have known Clarence for 10 years, and I consider him to be a personal and professional friend, in spite of the fact that he shares a conservative Republican philosophy.
AI Built for Litigation. Verified by Design.
Grounded in authoritative content and verified at every step, Protégé is the only legal AI tool that delivers work you can trust—without exception.
Thirty-plus years later, the reviews are in. Asked on Sunday whether he stood by that endorsement, Clyburn didn’t hedge, “I have made mistakes in my life, and that’s one that I made, and I will own up to that mistake.” He added that he “had no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel the way he has against his own background and experiences.”
The ‘rebellion’ has been ongoing for decades. Thomas has eroded civil rights protections, from voting rights to affirmative action. His Dobbs concurrence openly invited the Court to reconsider its rulings on contraception, same-sex intimacy, and marriage equality. He and Neil Gorsuch keep going to the mat to gut press freedom by overturning New York Times v. Sullivan. He has even, in one memorable instance, urged the Court to overturn a decision written by… Clarence Thomas. So the ‘rebel against his own everything’ framing is, if anything, underselling it.
Which brings us to Clyburn’s proposed remedy. His answer to the Court he helped stock is to add to it. Asked whether he backed expanding the bench from nine justices to 13, Clyburn said, “I do.”
“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand it,” he said. “Thirteen is a pretty good number; a baker’s dozen will be a good number to have on the court.”
Beyond Recall And Precision: Strategic Oversight Of AI Managed Review
AI can accelerate document review, but metrics alone aren't enough. Learn how Managing Attorney oversight turns AI-driven review into a more adaptive, strategic and defensible process.
Clyburn is not out on a limb here — the proposal to move to 13 was Kamala Harris’s. Court expansion is something House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries now describes as “dramatic Supreme Court reform” that needs to be considered. And a majority of Americans have said they’re on board with adding seats. The catch, beyond the small matter of needing the House, the Senate, and the White House all at once, is that the same logic runs in both directions. Whatever number Democrats pick, the next Republican trifecta gets to pick a bigger one, which is how you end up modeling a 61-justice Court by 2123.
There’s a tidy symmetry to all of it, though. The congressman who once vouched for Thomas now wants to add four colleagues to outvote him. As far as apologies go, “I was wrong, and I’d like to dilute my mistake by 44 percent” has a certain honesty to it.
Earlier: Clarence Thomas Celebrates 30 Years Of Eroding Basic Constitutional Rights
Two Justices Just Signaled — Again — That They Want To Destroy Press Freedom
Clarence Thomas Urges Overturning SCOTUS Decision Written By Clarence Thomas
Hakeem Jeffries Is Reading The Room, Wants ‘Dramatic’ Supreme Court Reform
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1