Talarico Tries to Walk Back Views on Gender Transitions for Minors, Says SCOTUS Needs ‘Overhaul’
“I’ve been consistent on this issue”
Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico is trying to backpedal on his fringe position on gender transitions for minors, claiming that he no longer supports it. Perhaps his team finally looked at the polling on the topic.
In the same segment with a FOX News reporter, Talarico confirmed that he is open to the idea of adding justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as term limits and other reforms, while claiming that the court needs to be overhauled.
The National Desk reports:
Talarico backtracks controversial gender comments, pushes for Supreme Court overhaul
Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico backtracked on several of his controversial gender comments in an interview, while pushing for a ban on transgender surgery for minors and an overhaul of the Supreme Court.
Talarico told Fox News at a food drive campaign event in Dallas on Tuesday that if he is elected senator, he will “absolutely” vote for a national ban on transgender surgery for minors.
“I’ve been consistent on this issue,” he said, explaining his opposition to a Texas bill to ban transgender surgeries on minors by saying the measure “was overly broad.”
“If you go back and check, I voted for a major amendment to limit the bill to banning surgeries for minors,” Talarico said. “As a lawmaker, my job is to try to sift through everything the bill does. And sometimes there’s stuff in it that’s really harmful, and I have no choice but to oppose the bill as a whole.”…
While a Texas state representative in 2023, Talarico voted against SB 14, which prohibited certain transgender surgery, puberty blockers, and hormone treatments for minors. Democrats proposed 18 amendments to the bill, all of which Talarico voted in favor of and ultimately failed…
Meanwhile, Talarico said the Supreme Court was “infected” with corruption, and that it “needs to be overhauled.”
If elected, Talarico said, “You’re going to expect that I will vote for overhaul to the Supreme Court. That will include binding codes of conduct for our justices. It’ll include term limits, and I am open to a discussion about expanding the number of justices.”
This video includes only his comments on the Supreme Court.
Fox News’ Brooke Taylor: “If you win this, should our voters expect you to vote for or against adding Supreme Court Justices more than 9?”
Texas Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate James Talarico: “The Supreme Court needs to be overhauled… I WILL vote for overhauls to the Supreme… pic.twitter.com/BpdSJ5yqwe
— RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) September 9, 2026
Does anyone believe Democrats would be pushing for changes to the U.S. Supreme Court had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election?
Perhaps they should try overhauling their party.
Featured image via Twitter/X video.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Consistently terrible.
I am in Dallas so I see and hear his radio and TV ads 10-15 times per day. ( the only TV I watch is 30 minutes of Jeopardy).
His latest ads are that he will protect Texas oil and gas jobs.
Protect oil and gas jobs from who? Himself?
I am in NY, and Youtube keeps pushing his fundraising ads at me.
A heretic acts this way when ‘judgement’ is nigh.
Chameleon Turdrico needs a lobotomy.
texas gonna find out if recent transplants are bringing their talaricos with them or left them back “home”
The reason that the left thinks SCOTUS needs overhaul is that the left had a 20-year run implementing their agenda through SCOTUS, from abortion as the “law of the land” to “CO2 can be regulated as a pollutant under the CAA”. They do not have the ability to force their views on even a majority of the states (even an electoral majority) so they want to have a friendly court and friendly judges to promote their views.
Right now, the court seems “substantially” to be enforcing the Constitution, which enrages the left. They want the Cuba Constitution enforced instead, with all the supposed “rights” for all their batty causes.
Exactly so.
The SC reform you’d think the losers could get behind would be “Tell me exacly what to change to get what I want.”
Break out the crayons n puppets.
Like “shall not be infringed…” prob needs to say something else if yr gonna ban by new regulation citizens having surplus green-tip that just happens to be preferred practice ammo for people you find deplorable.
To date you have to Dershowit
Sorry.
To date you have to Dershowitz-out to find the sticking point in law in the decisions.
Term limits on the judicial branch make no sense. The Dems want activist judges rather than a neutral separate but equal judicial system. Truly even legislative limits if not longer than 16 years are a waste.
“What I really meant to say was: whatever you wanted, I am for it, vote for me, vote for me, vote for me. And I have been 100% consistent in this message.”
Pray, even if you never have, that this creep does not get elected.
If he is, it will be an indicator of where Texas is headed.
A question: will any companies in places like CA, NY, IL, and other over-regulated states re-consider moving to Texas because of that indicator?
There was a time when someone like him never would have risen to public office. In saner days he would have been beaten up in childhood so often, for looking like a bent, mental dufus, that he would have been cowed for life. Why listen to this jerk when nature provides us a shortcut to judge him by?
“In saner days he would have been beaten up in childhood so often, for looking like a bent, mental dufus, that he would have been cowed for life.”
Sadly, instead, we are stuck with participation trophy losers grasping for power, like toddlers grasping for matches.
First lair doesn’t stand a chance. Stacking one upon another doesn’t help either. In a few days and we will find the true Texas.
Meanwhile the Senate GOP won’t even pass the SAVE act.
Loony Thune, the Deep State Senate waste of life.
He remains ahead in the polls.
The Bush family is voting for him (no surprise)
If only America had realized in time that “compassionate conservative” was just a euphemism for “liberal.”
Twinkerbell is not gonna win if GoP majority in TX shows up to vote. However, if butthurt establishment, country club sorts still salty that their boy Cornyn got tossed out in the primary refuse to show up then Paxton might lose. Somehow the same expectations/demands the GoP establishment preached for decades that ‘everyone must unify, support and vote for the nominee regardless of differences to defeat the d/prog’ don’t seem to be quite so important to the same establishment types that rammed G. Bush, Dole, W. Bush, McCain and Romney down our throats. There’s several contests where we’ll see whether the establishment is willing to take their own medicine or whether they demonstrate they are only feckless frauds who must be purged from power.
This guy is one of the worst turds to have floated out of the democrat cess pool in recent memory. So fake and so plastic. Are we so sure he’s not one of those badly programmer AIs they keep warning us about.
I think he originated as a Japanese suck-bot
This is a fantastical pipe dream, at least at the moment. Such a bill would be vetoed by Trump, obviously.
But I’m glad these little tyrannical cosplay bit*hes are saying this stuff out loud…. let your freak flag fly, little boy, let us know what a piece of sh*t you really are.
“You’re going to expect that I will vote for overhaul to the Supreme Court. That will include binding codes of conduct for our justices. It’ll include term limits, and I am open to a discussion about expanding the number of justices.”
OK, Milhous,
Expanding the court? Seems certainly within Congress’s authority. My opinion is that it is highly likely in the near future. If the Democrats win control of Congress and the WH, there will probably be enough GOP squishes for it to happen.
Term limits? Can Congress do that? to this not-a-lawyer, it doesn’t seem so, although Roberts might decide it is a tax.
Code of conduct? Again, what actual control does Congress have?
Your chosen legal council is like asking a tv station to air a Plexiderm commercial.
Expanding the court is certainly something Congress can do. But doing it in a way that allows the current president to make all the new nominations is politically a non-starter. If the president’s party is in the senate minority then it will never be brought up, and if they’re in the majority then the minority will filibuster it. Neither party will be willing to blow up the filibuster just to get this through. So the only way it can be done is to gradually expand it over the course of years, giving each president in turn a chance to fill one of the newly-created vacancies.
Term limits would need a constitutional amendment. Not happening without a national bipartisan consensus.
A code of conduct is doable, under Congress’s power to remove judges for misconduct. Congress can define what it considers to be misconduct, and then remove judges who refuse to conform to it. But to have a chance of passing it would have to be bipartisan.
Congress already has a removal process for federal judges: impeachment. A code of conduct is political theater unless the threshold for removal after trial in the Senate is lowered.
Adding just enough more justices to alter the balance of the Court is monumentally short-sighted and idiotic. The advantage gained would be so temporary and after a few new appointments, we would be right back where we started. Then what? Go from 13 to 23? Why not 37, or 451? The notion that it would function better is counterintuitive.
Kid couldn’t think his way out of a paper bag