'Chaos Has Not Ended Just Yet': CNN Guest Floats Idea That'll Make Kamala More Powerful Than Ever Before

Vice President Kamala Harris may be exiting Washington, D.C. in an elected capacity, but for some Democrats — including a well-known liberal commentator and party insider — this may be the start of something new for her if Joe Biden makes a bold choice.

In a CNN discussion on Donald Trump’s transition, political analyst Bakari Sellers shared a notion circulating online: the possibility of Kamala Harris as a Supreme Court Justice.

Though this idea isn’t new, a quick search on social media (formerly X) shows it's a hot topic:

Admittedly, these are just social media voices, and given the intense reactions since Trump’s election, there remain strong supporters who think Harris still has a chance at the Oval Office.

Yet, there’s some basis — if flawed — to this idea. With Democrats currently holding both the White House and the Senate, confirming a Supreme Court justice is within reach.

Justice Sotomayor, one of three remaining liberal voices on the court, is 70 and has a history of health issues, including type 1 diabetes. By contrast, Harris is 60 and has no known health concerns. With her background as a lawyer and former prosecutor, she also brings relevant legal experience.

However, this notion is more a mix of overly optimistic fantasy and concern about the Supreme Court’s future. Should Trump return to office, conservative justices like Clarence Thomas (76) and Samuel Alito (74) would likely step down in favor of younger successors to avoid another Ruth Bader Ginsburg situation.

Sellers became one of the highest-profile Democrats to support this idea during the CNN segment on Friday.

“It’s something that should happen,” he stated about potentially replacing Sotomayor in the interim period.

“Justice Sotomayor has served effectively, though I understand she has personal issues while on the bench. I don’t want her to end up like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, staying too long."

He elaborated on the court’s composition: “The court is six-three now. If a Biden justice were appointed, it would remain six-three. But the chances of Justice Sotomayor needing to retire in the next four years are significant.”

For Harris’s potential nomination, he added, “And let me just say, we’ve got a vice president with the legal credentials for the Supreme Court. Republicans will lose it if this even becomes a suggestion.”

Host John Berman, slightly incredulous, responded, “Are you suggesting Vice President Kamala Harris as a Supreme Court nominee at 7:39 a.m. on the East Coast?”

Sellers replied, “I’m not only suggesting it, I want to stir things up, to make heads spin so we head into the weekend knowing the chaos isn’t over yet.”

To acknowledge the positives: Harris’s extensive vetting through two presidential campaigns and one vice-presidential run ensures her record is well-documented. But that’s where the pros stop.

On the downside, there are several issues. Traditionally, Supreme Court nominees are typically judges, often with years of high-level judicial experience.

Harris has never been a judge. She once served as California’s attorney general, but that’s the extent of her judicial experience. Given the controversies around Biden’s sole Supreme Court nominee, who couldn’t define “woman” before Congress, this suggestion feels extreme.

Additionally, this move would signal that the left views the Supreme Court as merely a political tool to achieve legislative goals that wouldn’t pass in Congress.

Does this nomination reflect Harris’s skill in interpreting constitutional precedent? No. She would likely be a reliable liberal vote, aimed at fostering “chaos.” Imagine her opinions: “This is a significant case because it’s... significant. Therefore, we must employ grand legal reasoning. Let’s not dwell on small cases since this one is, indeed, big. Cue laughter.”

In reality, this scenario is improbable. Such an overt power play might even alienate some Democrats, who would see the harm this could do to America.

Ultimately, it illustrates the extent of the left’s desperation. Even in defeat, they seem to cling to the belief that the American public simply doesn’t grasp their greatness, prompting them to pursue “chaos” until voters finally understand.