Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg apparently got the message this week that he cannot hope to win the Democratic nomination without promising radical measures, including the packing of the Supreme Court. After denouncing the current Court as “rogue” for not ruling as the left has demanded, Buttigieg endorsed the plan of Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren to pack the Court to reverse adverse constitutional interpretations.
For years, the Supreme Court had a liberal majority that overturned dozens of long-standing cases. That was not viewed as the work of a rogue court. Yet, even as President Donald Trump attacks this Court for ruling repeatedly against him, liberals are now demanding court packing. As the party becomes more radicalized, any candidate expressing doubts over radical demands like court packing is unlikely to make it out of the primaries.
Accordingly, “Mayor Pete” is reaching for Court-Packing Kool-Aid.
In making his pitch to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition convention, Buttigieg knew that he had to offer some radical bona fides. He decided to offer up the Supreme Court:
“We have to do [something] with the Supreme Court, that is now a rogue Supreme Court. To see them eviscerate the Voting Rights Act is to see them reverse some of the most important progress this country ever made, wiping out Black political representation, but also wiping out part of what actually is great within the complex American story.”
That description is part of a campaign of disinformation about the Court’s recent decision to end racial gerrymandering. The Court reaffirmed that the Voting Rights Act would be used to prevent any intentional racial discrimination. It banned states (almost entirely Democratic states) from engaging in racial discrimination to guarantee election results based on the race of the candidates.
He then thrilled the crowd by promising to pack the Court to guarantee the results that he and they are demanding. Declaring that it is “time to think big,” Buttigieg explained:
“Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that there have to be nine Supreme Court justices. That one doesn’t even take a constitutional amendment. It just takes a readiness to set up a court that fits this country. We could have 13 seats matching the district structure of the federal judiciary, but also a process that makes it less partisan.”
Buttigieg appears to be referring to the circuit system, not the district court system.
What is most striking is that he promises to reverse decisions on issues like racial gerrymandering by packing the Court, but then says it will make the Court “less partisan.”
The whole point of adding four new justices selected by the Democrats is to create an instant majority to their liking and to reverse past rulings.
Years ago, I wrote an academic piece on the possible expansion of the Supreme Court, but there is a world of difference between that and a court-packing plan. Under my proposal, the court’s expansion would take almost two decades to ensure that no president could pack the court.
Various Democrats have been pledging to not only impeach Trump (and a long list of other figures), but to pack the Supreme Court as soon as they regain power.
James Carville declared, “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F— it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”
This Nike School of Constitutional Law is catching on with a wide array of pundits and professors. Just do it.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”
At base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Court. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.” Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said the court “defies the will of the people.” Reporter John Haltiwanger insisted that “the court is clearly not representative of the U.S. public. It’s supposed to be the people’s court.”
In reality, the court was never meant to be that. It was meant to be the Constitution’s court, designed to stand against everyone and everything except the Constitution. In a system designed to protect the minority, the court (like the Constitution) is counter-majoritarian in much of what it does.
With the Supreme Court removed as a barrier to the left’s radical agenda, Democrats could indeed fulfill the objectives laid out by figures like Klarman to ensure they never lose power again.
That will make the 2028 election the most consequential election for our constitutional history in decades. The outcome will most immediately decide the fate of an institution that has been a stabilizing force for centuries. Even though this Court has ruled against the Trump Administration on a variety of key issues, the left is still demanding that it either yield to all of their demands or face a hostile takeover.
On our 250th anniversary, these reckless and radical voices remind us that (as Benjamin Franklin warned us) this is our Republic if we can keep it.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 10:25After 107 days and a seemingly endless number of false dawns, we finally have a deal between the US and Iran to end the war and open the Strait of Hormuz. It was announced on Sunday afternoon - Trump's birthday, shortly before futures opened for trading and ahead of today's Iran game in the World Cup - and the MoU will be signed in Switzerland on Friday.
According to statements carried by Iranian state-affiliated media, the agreement includes a phased lifting of US sanctions on Iranian oil exports, the unfreezing of roughly $12bn in overseas assets, and a commitment to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days (after mine clearing) alongside the removal of the US naval blockade. The deal also sets out a 60-day negotiation window on a broader accord, including constraints around Iran’s nuclear programme, where Tehran is expected to commit to maintaining its current status and not pursuing nuclear weapons. The US hasn’t been so explicit and whilst the deal is very good news for markets it looks like tough conversations will have occur in the 60-day window to ensure the peace is sustainable. As an example, the Senate needs to approve any extensive sanction relief for Iran.
The other major story is the decision late on Friday from the US government to issue an export control directive forcing Anthropic to restrict access to its most advanced models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, released to great global acclaim last week, to US nationals only, citing undefined national security concerns. In practice, because it is operationally difficult to separate users by nationality, Anthropic opted to suspend access to these models entirely on a global basis. The move marks one of the first instances of the US applying export controls not just to AI hardware (e.g. semiconductors) but directly to frontier models themselves, reflecting a growing view of AI as a strategic, dual use asset.
Clearly the export control may only be temporary as the cited jailbreak risk is examined and rectified quickly. This is probably the most likely outcome. However, if it longer-term, and more strategic from the US government, it's not great news for US tech firms or for those assuming breakneck speed of AI adoption. US tech firms require a global marketplace to justify their huge investments so far. In addition, global enterprise would want to ensure any models they purchase are usable, especially for business-critical operations. You can't rely on something that could be switched off. So all eyes on what Anthropic and the US government agree as the next step.
Outside of Iran and AI, central banks will dominate the global agenda in the coming week, with key policy decisions across the Fed, BoJ and BoE alongside important inflation and activity data.
The primary focus will be the United States and Wednesday’s FOMC meeting, which marks the first under new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh. The leadership transition introduces a higher-than-usual degree of uncertainty around both policy signalling and communication style. While an immediate policy shift is unlikely, the meeting will be closely scrutinized for early indications of how Warsh intends to reshape the Fed’s framework, particularly given his stated ambition for a broader “regime change”.
In terms of the statement, a modest upgrade to the labor market assessment appears likely, reflecting steady job growth and a broadly stable unemployment rate. More importantly, the guidance language could shift meaningfully. Warsh has been openly critical of heavy reliance on forward guidance, so the Committee may lean towards a more neutral, data-dependent formulation. This would effectively remove any residual easing bias and reopen the possibility of further tightening should inflation dynamics warrant it. Any such adjustment would be interpreted as a recalibration towards optionality rather than a firm directional signal.
Beyond the headline statement, attention will turn to the Summary of Economic Projections. The distribution of rate expectations may shift upwards, with 4 or 5 policymakers signalling the potential for hikes into 2026 and beyond. This would likely nudge the median path higher across the projection horizon and reinforce the idea that the Fed is not yet comfortable declaring victory on inflation. DB's economists note that Warsh may not submit dots which would reflect his views on forward guidance. Revisions to inflation forecasts, particularly for the outer years, will also be closely examined for evidence of more persistent price pressures. At the moment DB economists expect core PCE for 2027 to be raised by a tenth to 2.3%.
However, the most revealing element of the meeting may be Warsh’s press conference. His prior remarks suggest he will likely place less emphasis on near-term data fluctuations and explicit forward guidance, instead favoring a broader narrative around structural forces such as productivity and technological change. While this could temper the immediate hawkish interpretation, markets may test whether this framing is sufficient to justify patience in the face of still-elevated inflation. Just as important will be any early signals on communication reform—whether through changes to the dot plot, adjustments to the SEP, or a broader rethink of how the Fed conveys uncertainty. So a fascinating meeting to look forward to.
In terms of US data, the focus will be on May retail sales due Wednesday, and our US economists expect a +0.5% MoM rise in the headline (same as in April). Industrial production is due today (DB forecast is a +0.1% MoM increase, down from +0.7% in April) and there will be several housing indicators out this week as well. US markets will be on holiday for the Juneteenth National Independence Day on Friday.
Outside the US, central bank activity remains heavy. In Europe, decisions are due from the Riksbank and a cluster of Thursday meetings including the Bank of England, Swiss National Bank and Norges Bank. In the UK, the BoE is expected to keep rates unchanged, with attention focused on the vote split (expectations for 7-2) and any evolution in guidance against a backdrop of still-sticky inflation. Incoming UK data, particularly CPI (Wednesday), labour market indicators (Thursday) and retail sales (Friday), will provide important context for the policy outlook. Meanwhile, euro area attention will also be shaped by ongoing commentary from ECB officials and sentiment indicators such as the German ZEW survey (tomorrow).
Political developments will also be in focus, with the G7 leaders meeting early in the week (today through Wednesday) followed by the European Council summit (Thursday-Friday).
In Asia, the Bank of Japan meeting (tomorrow) stands out, with expectations for a further rate increase as part of its gradual normalization process. Japanese inflation data later in the week (Friday) will help gauge whether underlying price momentum continues to justify policy tightening. In China, their monthly activity data tomorrow covering industrial production and retail sales will provide an updated read on the growth trajectory, with expectations for a modest improvement after recent softness.
Elsewhere in the region, the Reserve Bank of Australia is likely to remain on hold (tomorrow), while New Zealand’s GDP release (Wednesday) will offer further insight into the strength of its economic recovery.
Courtesy of DB, here is a day-by-day snapshot of key events
Monday June 15
Tuesday June 16
Wednesday June 17
Thursday June 18
Friday June 19
* * *
Looking at just the US, the key economic data releases this week are the import prices report on Tuesday and the retail sales report on Wednesday. The June FOMC meeting is on Wednesday. The post-meeting statement will be released at 2:00 PM ET, followed by Chairman Warsh’s press conference at 2:30 PM.
Monday, June 15
Tuesday, June 16
Wednesday, June 17
Thursday, June 18
Friday, June 19
Source: DB, Goldman
Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 10:00Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times,
Protesters smashed windows at a United Nations agency and set fire to a Tesla vehicle on June 14 during a protest march in Geneva, Switzerland, against the holding of the G7 summit, just across the border in the French town of Evian-les-Bains.
A Tesla car burns during a protest against the G7 summit, across the border in France, in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 14, 2026. Denis Balibouse/ReutersAround 20,000 people took part in the march that was largely peaceful, according to police, who also said they confiscated a number of knives and pyrotechnic devices.
U.S. President Donald Trump is among the leaders attending the June 15-17 summit, which is being protected by a high-security cordon following an agreement between the French and Swiss governments.
The June 14 march was organized by the so-called NoG7 coalition, which has posted a list of "internationalist demands" on its blog, which include ending trade relations with Israel, dismantling U.S. military bases in Europe, and dissolving the G7 organization.
Several of the demonstrators said the G7 was a symbol of the world's wealthiest countries.
"To me, it's a meeting of the rich that shows once again how the rich can become even richer while the poor are left behind," Pippa Saugy, one of the protesters, said.
The Swiss government has deployed 4,000 soldiers to support the police, while France has sent more than 13,000 police and gendarmerie officers to secure the summit.
One of the protesters, Mattia Piccard, said he resented the large police presence on June 14.
"This is an attempt to frighten demonstrators, to frighten people and discourage them from coming out to protest," Piccard said.
Geneva resident Susanne Haldemann said she felt sad for the owner of the burned Tesla, who had probably worked hard to pay for it.
She said it was unfair that he should pay for "this anger and that frustration" of people, especially the younger generation.
Yann Smid, who works in Geneva, said people in the city had been braced for protests.
"People know that if Geneva plays a very important role, there would be protests, and it happened in the past," Smid said. "I think they are used to it, and obviously it's just a question of disruption."
The French and Swiss authorities have imposed restrictions on border crossings, and, apart from the June 14 march, which was authorized, there is a ban on public gatherings in Geneva.
Trump will join the leaders of France, Germany, Japan, the UK, Canada, Italy, and the European Union at the summit.
The agenda is expected to include global trade, immigration, geopolitical conflicts, and other key issues, although the official G7 website states that the program still has not been finalized.
The French Foreign Ministry says more than 110,000 people commute across the border every day to work in Geneva, and last week it said the number of French border control officers was being increased from 60 on a normal day to 800.
Airspace Restrictions, Road ClosuresThere will be airspace restrictions, patrols on Lake Geneva, and road closures. Only seven of the 35 highway border crossings will be open.
In 2003, when the G8 summit was held in Geneva, dozens of storefronts were vandalized by anti-globalization protesters.
Storefronts in Geneva, just over the border in Switzerland, were boarded up last week, and the World Trade Organization, which was targeted in Seattle in 1999, closed its offices and told staff to work from home until the summit is over.
France and Switzerland have agreed to a military cooperation agreement in the run-up to the summit, and G7 leaders will arrive at Geneva's international airport - which is in Switzerland but almost surrounded by French territory - before crossing the border to Evian-les-Bains under heavy security.
Residents of Evian-les-Bains, known for its bottled water, have been given special access permits, and the zone around the Hotel Royal, where the summit will take place, will be cordoned off.
People hold a protest against the G7 summit, in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 14, 2026. Umit Bektas/Reuters Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 09:45