Mary Gay Scanlon

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 68 wordsas ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, I am here to emphasize that this proposed constitutional amendment would undermine our system of checks and balances and fly in the face of the Founders’ wisdom.¹ I think it would be a grave mistake to dictate how many Justices should sit on the Supreme Court in perpetuity and, thereby, lock in for a generation, Claims · 142 wordsor more, a rightwing majority, which has engaged in an unprecedented assault on Supreme Court norms and our constitutional order.Unearned certainty For the past several years, in the wake of the Court packing that occurred during the first Trump administration and under the Senate leadership of Mitch McConnell, constituents have called for Supreme Court reform at every townhall that I have held.²³ Those calls have grown louder in the wake of each decision that has lessened our individual rights and liberties or enabled the administration to avoid accountability or overrule the powers and duties reserved to the American people through their Representatives in Congress and in the ethical lapses of the Court’s own members. People are paying attention. They are demanding a Court that is more responsive to we the people than to an administration that is beholden to special interests and oligarchs.Off point Reasoning · 41 wordsThe American public, the Founders, and the Constitution demand more than a misguided constitutional amendment that would permanently tie Congress’ hands by capping the number of Justices, especially when there are more pragmatic solutions that have not yet received due consideration. Mr. Speaker, The ask · 9 wordsI strongly urge my colleagues to reject this measure.