Analysis · Speech on a bill · beta

Andy Biggs

Republican on Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to Require That the Supreme Court of the United States Be Composed of Nine Justices 2026-09-02

705 words · 40 sentences · 53 clauses

Statement grade

A–

Average 89 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Procedure 10%Positioning 10%Claims 64%Reasoning 9%Thanks 2%Aside 1%Promise 3%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 9 wordsI yield myself such time as I may consume.Procedure Positioning · 22 wordsI get it, that the gentleman does not like Donald J. Trump and that this is an ideological position he is taking, PositioningClaims · 15 wordswhich is kind of what the scholars have said is the definition of Court packing. Reasoning · 25 wordsWhen you want to increase the number of people on the Supreme Court so you can effectuate your ideological bent, yes, that is Court packing. Procedure · 10 wordsThis isn’t new, this position that we are taking today.Procedure Claims · 57 wordsThis was introduced in the 116th, ¹which was under Donald Trump.² It was introduced in the 118th, ³which was under Joe Biden.⁴ By the way, it was Joe Biden’s own special commission that said it would be wrong to actually increase the number of people on the Supreme Court.⁵ Now, we have introduced this in the 119th.⁶ Thanks · 14 wordsI do appreciate the gentleman talking about Arizona needs representation on the Supreme Court.Thanks Claims · 86 wordsI also think we need representation in the Ninth Circuit--it would be nice if you could help us along there--the circuit, a court that actually goes from the equator to the Arctic Circle. You can’t even get an en banc there because they have 29 justices, appellate judges.⁷ You can’t get an en banc in the Ninth because it is all random.Off point Anyway, back to the point here, my colleagues on the other side tell us that the Supreme Court has changed before. They are right. Procedure · 12 wordsHowever, there is an important piece of history that they leave out.Procedure Claims · 73 wordsFor much of the 19th century, the size of the Supreme Court was tied to the size of the Federal judiciary.⁸ As the country expanded and Congress created new judicial circuits, Congress added Justices to help carry those responsibilities, ⁹but that changed in 1869.¹⁰ Congress fixed the Court at nine Justices, ¹¹and for more than half of the length of this country, it has been nine Justices, regardless of the number of circuits.¹² Procedure · 14 wordsThere is one historical example that matters most to the question before us today, ProcedureClaims · 28 wordsand that is Franklin Roosevelt who, in 1937, after winning reelection, was furious that the Supreme Court had repeatedly struck down parts of his New Deal as unconstitutional.¹³¹⁴ Positioning · 13 wordsThat was the birth, perhaps, of the attempt to have an imperial executive.Positioning Claims · 27 wordsInstead of changing laws to comply with the Constitution, he proposed changing the Court.¹⁵ His plans would have allowed him to add up to six new Justices, ¹⁶Reasoning · 19 wordsand who would appoint those Justices? The President of the United States would. Who was the President? Franklin Roosevelt. Positioning · 37 wordsEveryone understood what was happening.Unearned certainty It wasn’t about building a better courthouse. It wasn’t about adding circuits. It wasn’t about helping manage expanding judicial caseload. It was about changing the composition of the Court for ideological purposes.Positioning Procedure · 4 wordsHere is what happened: ProcedureClaims · 25 wordsThe plan faced fierce opposition, including from members of Roosevelt’s own party.¹⁷ Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes pushed back.¹⁸ The Senate ultimately rejected the plan, ¹⁹Procedure · 11 wordsand this is what they said--this is from the records today: ProcedureClaims · 18 words``We recommend the rejection of this bill as a needless, futile, ²⁰and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle.’’ Aside · 10 wordsNot holding firm at nine, but because you wanted--not you, AsideClaims · 121 wordsbut the Democratic Party at that time--not even the Democratic Party, excuse me, let’s be very clear, one individual, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. ``It is a proposal without precedent and without justification,’’ they said. ``It would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights.’’ ``It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution and establishes the method whereby the people may be deprived of their right to pass upon all amendments of the fundamental law.’’ ``It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.’’²¹ Reasoning · 22 wordsDo you know what ``it’’ was, the measure that they were so offended by? It was an attempt to pack the Court. Promise · 21 wordsNext time, I will probably start reading all the folks on the other side who want to do that very thing.Off point Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 12 wordsI yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).Procedure

At a glance

Lost points for
Reasons givenThis statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 73

19 of 25 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I yield myself such time as I may consume.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I get it, that the gentleman does not like Donald J.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Trump and that this is an ideological position he is taking,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “This isn’t new, this position that we are taking today.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I do appreciate the gentleman talking about Arizona needs representation on the Supreme Court.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “However, there is an important piece of history that they leave out.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “There is one historical example that matters most to the question before us today,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “That was the birth, perhaps, of the attempt to have an imperial executive.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Everyone understood what was happening.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It wasn’t about building a better courthouse.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It wasn’t about adding circuits.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It wasn’t about helping manage expanding judicial caseload.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It was about changing the composition of the Court for ideological purposes.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Here is what happened:”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “and this is what they said--this is from the records today:”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “Not holding firm at nine,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “but because you wanted--not you,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Harris).”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 84

5 of 25 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the bill under debate.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “I do appreciate the gentleman talking about Arizona needs representation on the Supreme Court.”A brief aside acknowledging another member’s remark rather than addressing the amendment.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “I also think we need representation in the Ninth Circuit--it would be nice if you could help us along there--the circuit, a court that actually goes from the equator to the Arctic Circle.”Pivots to the Ninth Circuit vacancy, a different subject from the size of the Supreme Court.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “You can’t even get an en banc there because they have 29 justices, appellate judges.”Continues the digression about the Ninth Circuit’s 29 appellate judges, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “You can’t get an en banc in the Ninth because it is all random.”Still on the Ninth Circuit’s en banc process, not the amendment under debate.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Next time, I will probably start reading all the folks on the other side who want to do that very thing.”A promise of future attacks on the other side rather than an argument about the amendment.

Reasoning · 100

0 of 25 deductions are Reasoning

Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.

Nothing lost points.

Conclusions found · 3

Conclusion“When you want to increase the number of people on the Supreme Court so you can effectuate your ideological bent, yes, that is Court packing.”

BecauseGiven in the same sentence

Reason given
Conclusion“It was about changing the composition of the Court for ideological purposes.”

Because“and that is Franklin Roosevelt who, in 1937, after winning reelection, was furious that the Supreme Court had repeatedly struck down parts of his New Deal as unconstitutional.”

“Instead of changing laws to comply with the Constitution, he proposed changing the Court.”

“His plans would have allowed him to add up to six new Justices,”

“and who would appoint those Justices?”

“The President of the United States would.”

“Who was the President?”

“Franklin Roosevelt.”

Reason given
Conclusion“It was an attempt to pack the Court.”

Because“``We recommend the rejection of this bill as a needless, futile,”

“and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle.’’”

“but the Democratic Party at that time--not even the Democratic Party, excuse me, let’s be very clear, one individual, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. ``It is a proposal without precedent and without justification,’’ they said. ``It would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights.’’ ``It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution and establishes the method whereby the people may be deprived of their right to pass upon all amendments of the fundamental law.’’ ``It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.’’”

Reason given

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Clarity · 99

1 of 25 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “Everyone understood what was happening”Asserts a universal understanding as fact without citing any source or evidence.

Claims · 21

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“This was introduced in the 116th”search
2“which was under Donald Trump”search
3“It was introduced in the 118th”search
4“which was under Joe Biden”search
5“Joe Biden’s own special commission that said it would be wrong to actually increase the number of people on the Supreme Court”search
6“we have introduced this in the 119th”search
7“they have 29 justices, appellate judges”search
8“For much of the 19th century, the size of the Supreme Court was tied to the size of the Federal judiciary”search
9“Congress added Justices to help carry those responsibilities”search
10“that changed in 1869”search
11“Congress fixed the Court at nine Justices”search
12“for more than half of the length of this country, it has been nine Justices”search
13“in 1937, after winning reelection”search
14“the Supreme Court had repeatedly struck down parts of his New Deal as unconstitutional”search
15“he proposed changing the Court”search
16“His plans would have allowed him to add up to six new Justices”search
17“fierce opposition, including from members of Roosevelt’s own party”search
18“Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes pushed back”search
19“The Senate ultimately rejected the plan”search
20“``We recommend the rejection of this bill as a needless, futile, ”search
21“It would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary”search

Analyzed on 2026-09-14