Analysis · Speech on a bill · beta

Lauren Boebert

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

284 words · 18 sentences · 23 clauses

Statement grade

C+

Average 68 / 100

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

Thanks 4%Procedure 7%Positioning 36%Claims 35%Reasoning 14%Aside 4%The ask 1%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 12 wordsI thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for yielding me time.Thanks Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 14 wordsI rise today in defense of the judicial branch of the United States Government.Procedure Positioning · 15 wordsThe Supreme Court of the United States is not a partisan prize to be captured.Positioning Claims · 8 wordsIt is an independent branch of our government, Reasoning · 5 wordsand it must remain impartial. Claims · 59 wordsMy colleague’s amendment to limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices preserves judicial fairness, ensures unbiased decisionmaking, No reason givenLogical leapand upholds the constitutional duties of our Nation’s highest court. Some on the left have advocated for expanding the Court to 13 Justices, paving the way for the majority of leftwing ideologues to sit on the Supreme Court under future Presidential administrations.¹ Reasoning · 28 wordsWe cannot simply change the rules because one side thinks that they are not getting their way enough. That is not how a constitutional republic works, Mr. Speaker.Unearned certainty Positioning · 8 wordsThis is what happens in the Third World, PositioningReasoning · 7 wordsand it cannot happen here in America. Aside · 10 wordsDemocratic Socialists, kind of an oxymoron, are on the rise, AsidePositioning · 19 wordsand they want to pack the Court so they can impose an agenda the American people never voted for.PositioningUnearned certainty Procedure · 5 wordsLook at what happened yesterday.Procedure Claims · 31 wordsDemocrats could not even vote against socialism because their own party is overrun by self-proclaimed socialists.² We already saw what the far left did under Joe Biden by opening our borders.Off point Positioning · 60 wordsJust imagine what they would do with a court packed with DSA judges. The proposed expansion of the Supreme Court is not about faithfully interpreting the laws of the United States and the Constitution. Rather, the expansion would support a radical leftist agenda, repugnant to the ideas in equality, liberty, and impartial justice under the law of our Founding Fathers.Positioning Mr. Speaker, The ask · 3 wordsI urge adoption.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 48

12 of 19 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “Biggs) for yielding me time.”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 “I rise today in defense of the judicial branch of the United States Government.”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 “The Supreme Court of the United States is not a partisan prize to be captured.”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 “This is what happens in the Third World,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “Democratic Socialists, kind of an oxymoron, are on the rise,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and they want to pack the Court so they can impose an agenda the American people never voted for.”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 “Look at what happened yesterday.”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 “Just imagine what they would do with a court packed with DSA judges.”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 “The proposed expansion of the Supreme Court is not about faithfully interpreting the laws of the United States and the Constitution.”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 “Rather, the expansion would support a radical leftist agenda, repugnant to the ideas in equality, liberty,”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 “and impartial justice under the law of our Founding Fathers.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 86

3 of 19 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 “Look at what happened yesterday.”It points to yesterday’s events rather than the nine-Justice amendment itself.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Democrats could not even vote against socialism because their own party is overrun by self-proclaimed socialists.”It is about how Democrats voted on a socialism measure, not the Court-size 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 “We already saw what the far left did under Joe Biden by opening our borders.”It is about border policy under the prior administration, not the composition of the Supreme Court.

Reasoning · 50

2 of 19 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.

A conclusion stated with no reason given for it.What the tags mean “My colleague’s amendment to limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices preserves judicial fairness, ensures unbiased decisionmaking,”The clauses asserting fairness (c6-c10) are bare assertions, and the supporting passages (c11, c16-c24) rest on characterisations of opponents that do not show the amendment itself preserves impartiality.
A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it.What the tags mean “My colleague’s amendment to limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices preserves judicial fairness, ensures unbiased decisionmaking,”The claim that a fixed number of nine Justices preserves fairness and unbiased decisionmaking (c9-c10) is asserted without any supporting reasoning linking the number to impartiality.

Conclusions found · 3

Conclusion“My colleague’s amendment to limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices preserves judicial fairness, ensures unbiased decisionmaking,”

BecauseNo reason given

No reason given
Conclusion“We cannot simply change the rules because one side thinks that they are not getting their way enough.”

Because“That is not how a constitutional republic works, Mr. Speaker.”

Reason given
Conclusion“I urge adoption.”

Because“My colleague’s amendment to limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices preserves judicial fairness, ensures unbiased decisionmaking,”

“and upholds the constitutional duties of our Nation’s highest court.”

“We cannot simply change the rules because one side thinks that they are not getting their way enough.”

Reason flawed

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 · 87

2 of 19 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 “That is not how a constitutional republic works”Asserts a definitive rule of constitutional government without citing any source or authority.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “an agenda the American people never voted for”States what the entire American electorate did or did not vote for as fact, with no source offered.

Claims · 2

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“Some on the left have advocated for expanding the Court to 13 Justices”search
2“Democrats could not even vote against socialism”search

Analyzed on 2026-09-14