Senate Candidate Wants to Impeach Two SCOTUS Judges

Building with columns under a cloudy sky.

A Democratic Senate candidate in Maine just declared war on the Supreme Court, calling for its expansion and the impeachment of at least two justices—yet his campaign won’t say which ones or why.

Story Snapshot

Graham Platner told Maine Democrats that expanding the Supreme Court and impeaching justices should be top priorities if Democrats retake the Senate
He characterized the Supreme Court as a “political action wing” of conservatism rather than a constitutional body
Platner provided no specifics on which justices he’d target or what impeachable offenses they’ve committed
His campaign has remained silent on the remarks despite multiple requests for comment
The stance creates a sharp contrast with primary opponent Janet Mills, Maine’s governor who opposes court-packing

The Skowhegan Bombshell Nobody Saw Coming

Graham Platner stood before Somerset County Democrats in Skowhegan, Maine, and delivered what may become the defining moment of his Senate campaign. Democrats must stack the Supreme Court and impeach at least two sitting justices, he declared. The problem? He didn’t name names. He didn’t cite specific misconduct. He simply positioned the nation’s highest court as enemy territory requiring conquest through “every lever of power” available to a Senate majority. For a candidate challenging Republican incumbent Susan Collins in a state that values political moderation, this wasn’t just bold—it was potentially suicidal.

The Washington Free Beacon broke the story, but Platner’s campaign has ghosted every follow-up inquiry. His official campaign website, meanwhile, contains zero mention of Supreme Court reform despite his X feed history of attacking conservative justices. This silence speaks volumes. Either Platner realized he stepped in it, or his advisors understand that Maine voters who backed Trump in 2016 and narrowly went for Biden in 2020 don’t typically warm to candidates threatening institutional demolition.

Court-Packing’s Toxic History Resurfaces

Franklin Roosevelt tried expanding the Supreme Court in 1937 when justices kept striking down his New Deal programs. His own party revolted. The scheme died, and “court-packing” entered the American lexicon as a synonym for authoritarian overreach. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached: Samuel Chase in 1805, who was acquitted. The Constitution permits removal only for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”—not for issuing rulings one party dislikes. Platner’s proposal to impeach justices using standards for lower federal judges ignores this constitutional reality entirely.

Recent conservative Supreme Court decisions on abortion, gun rights, and administrative regulations have indeed frustrated progressives. But dissatisfaction with outcomes isn’t grounds for impeachment. Platner’s rhetoric treats the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority as illegitimate by virtue of its ideology alone. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate misrepresentation—of judicial independence. The Founders designed lifetime appointments precisely to insulate justices from political pressure. Platner wants to demolish that firewall because he dislikes the current occupants.

The Maine Primary Calculus Gets Messy

Governor Janet Mills, Platner’s primary opponent, has criticized Supreme Court decisions but explicitly rejected court-packing. This creates a clean ideological divide: Mills represents the traditional Democratic position of disagreeing with the Court while respecting its legitimacy, while Platner champions scorched-earth institutional warfare. Maine Democrats must now choose between measured criticism and revolutionary rhetoric. Moderate voters—the ones who actually decide Maine elections—are watching closely. Susan Collins has built her Senate career on appealing to exactly these voters who distrust extremism from either direction.

Platner’s gambit might energize the progressive base that views the Supreme Court as stolen property following Merrick Garland’s blocked nomination and Amy Coney Barrett’s swift confirmation. But primaries and general elections require different coalitions. What plays in Portland’s progressive circles dies in Aroostook County diners. Collins doesn’t need to say a word; she can simply let Platner’s remarks hang in the air like a political albatross. Republican operatives are undoubtedly already cutting ads featuring this footage for deployment against whoever emerges from the Democratic primary.

When Silence Becomes the Story

The most revealing aspect of this controversy isn’t what Platner said—it’s what he won’t say now. No clarification. No doubling down. No walking it back. Just radio silence from a campaign that presumably understands the magnitude of the unforced error. Politicians typically respond to controversy in one of three ways: defend the position with additional context, apologize and pivot, or ignore it hoping the news cycle moves on. Platner chose door number three, suggesting his advisors recognize the remarks were damaging but believe engaging further would only amplify the problem.

Conservative outlets labeled the proposal “dubious” with obvious justification. The Senate would need not just a majority but the political will to blow up judicial norms for partisan advantage. Moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema blocked such schemes when Democrats last held Senate control. Nothing suggests the caucus has moved dramatically leftward since then. Platner’s plan requires not just winning the Senate but convincing colleagues to commit institutional suicide—a tall order from a candidate who can’t win his own primary without getting past a sitting governor.