Prominent neoconservative Bill Kristol, once a leading voice in the Republican establishment and founder of The Weekly Standard, has explicitly endorsed 'ruthless' measures including packing the Supreme Court to counter what he and his colleagues at The Bulwark describe as Republican threats to liberal democracy. In reposting and amplifying colleague Jonathan V. Last's April 2026 essay 'It Is Time for Ruthless Aggression,' Kristol praised Democratic gerrymandering efforts in states like California and Virginia as models for aggressive institutional maneuvering. Last argued that expanding the Supreme Court 'is no different from redistricting in California and Virginia' and constitutes a 'proportionate response' to preserve the liberal order against an emerging 'post-liberal' shift. Kristol summarized the approach with a stark directive: 'Let's get ruthless.' This is not isolated rhetoric. It aligns with broader calls from figures like James Carville, who urged Democrats to expand the Court to 13 justices on 'day one' without debate, and former Attorney General Eric Holder, who has centered court expansion in discussions of power acquisition under a future Democratic trifecta. These proposals echo earlier academic advocacy, such as Harvard professor Michael Klarman's blueprint for systemic changes that would structurally disadvantage Republicans, contingent on neutralizing the current Court. The irony is profound. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, explicitly warned that court-packing would erode the institution's legitimacy, continuity, and public perception of impartiality. Kristol's evolution from Cold War hawk and Iraq War proponent—where neoconservatives justified forceful intervention to spread democracy abroad—to domestic advocate for bending constitutional norms reveals a deeper pattern. Neoconservative elites, having lost influence within a populist GOP, increasingly frame electoral and institutional pushback as existential threats necessitating suspension of traditional liberal constraints. This mirrors historical elite reactions to populism, where temporary 'safeguards' become permanent power consolidations. Connections to the never-Trump movement are clear: what began as principled opposition has morphed into justification for the very illiberalism once decried in adversaries. By equating judicial restructuring with routine redistricting while ignoring the distinct role of the judiciary as a check on majoritarianism, these voices expose an authoritarian undercurrent. The 'save democracy by any means' mindset risks accelerating tit-for-tat norm erosion, transforming constitutional guardrails into political weapons. As Turley notes, this Nike-style 'just do it' constitutionalism discards deliberation for raw power plays, a departure even many liberals once resisted. In a polarized landscape, such rhetoric from establishment figures like Kristol normalizes the idea that liberal democracy's survival requires its partial dismantlement—an admission that the elite consensus views popular sovereignty itself as the primary threat.