Procedure 5% Claims 47% Reasoning 40% Positioning 7% Aside 1%
Structure · 35 steps
Claims · 11
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 8 words I yield myself the balance of my time. Procedure Mr. Speaker, Claims · 44 words one still searches in vain for a single justification for why we would surrender and abdicate yet another power that Congress has in the Constitution, this time freezing it into the cement of constitutional architecture for all time, that there will be nine Justices. Mr. Speaker, Claims · 7 words they haven’t even explained what that means. Reasoning · 47 words For example, let’s say another Senate decides to do what Mitch McConnell did and hold a seat open for a year. Now that we have written a number into the Constitution for the first time, does that mean that the Supreme Court can’t meet or can’t vote? Procedure · 5 words It is a serious question. Procedure Reasoning · 18 words In other words, can the Supreme Court not operate if it doesn’t meet the magic number of nine? Claims · 4 words They haven’t told us, Positioning · 33 words which shows this is just frivolous political confetti that is being thrown into the air. Logical leap It is not an attempt to really think through the powers of Congress, the powers of the Court, Positioning Aside · 3 words and so on. Aside Claims · 13 words My friend from Kansas said that the Court shouldn’t be a political football, Reasoning · 26 words and I agree with him about that because there are important things entrusted to the Court, like the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, Claims · 80 words and due process, all things under attack by this administration. Their gerrymandered Supreme Court, well, they have done all right sometimes, not as good as the district courts and the appeals courts have done. We have won more than 80 percent of the cases against President Trump in those courts, 1 which is why they have been calling for the impeachment of judges, including Republican-appointed judges like Judge Boasberg, who was appointed by President Bush.2 They have called for his impeachment.3 Positioning · 9 words That is making a political football out of it. Positioning Claims · 35 words We have had colleagues who have put up posters to impeach this judge and impeach that judge.4 They wanted to have a hearing about it in the Judiciary Committee, where they are talking about it. Positioning · 8 words That is making a political football about it. Positioning Procedure · 8 words I think we can all be intellectually honest. Procedure Claims · 31 words We know after Brown v. Board, the right-wingers, the anti-integrationists said to impeach Earl Warren, 5 and the Republican platform for decades had language attacking the Supreme Court for Roe v.6 Wade. Off point Reasoning · 80 words People have a right on all sides of the political spectrum to express what they feel about the Supreme Court, but why suddenly should we amend the Constitution of the United States to revoke our own powers simply because President Trump happens to like this Supreme Court and they voted for his immunity from felony crimes committed while in office, the so-called textualists and the so-called originalists.7 Where do you see in the Constitution anything about the President having immunity? Claims · 24 words When the Framers wanted to write immunity into the Constitution, they did it, like through the Speech and Debate Clause for Members of Congress.8 Reasoning · 33 words Maybe that is what they are going to want to give up next, the Speech and Debate Clause protecting us from prosecution by the executive branch for saying things that he doesn’t like. Claims · 16 words That is not in the original Constitution.9 The President has it, but they made it up. Reasoning · 5 words Where did that come from? Aside · 4 words The stork brought it. Aside Claims · 31 words They invented it. They call themselves originalists. It wasn’t in the Federalist Papers.10 It wasn’t in the original Constitutional Convention records. It is not in any of the ratified convention records. Reasoning · 6 words Where did that doctrine come from? Claims · 4 words They made it up. Off point Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 55 words we all can argue about what the Supreme Court does, but nobody yet has made a single satisfactory argument about why we should freeze, for the first time in American history, the number of Justices at nine when it has always been up to the Representatives of the people in the House and the Senate. Procedure · 7 words Let me just close on that thought. Procedure Claims · 31 words The Senate already gets some say over the Supreme Court by rendering the power of advice and consent.11 The only power we have is the power they want to give up. Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 8 words I yield back the balance of my time. Procedure
At a glance
Lost points for Off point ×30 Procedure ×5 Positioning ×4 Aside ×2 Logical leap
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 84
11 of 42 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.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I yield myself the balance of my time.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “It is a serious question.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “which shows this is just frivolous political confetti that is being thrown into the air.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “It is not an attempt to really think through the powers of Congress, the powers of the Court,” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Aside A remark off to the side of the point. What the tags mean → “and so on.” An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “That is making a political football out of it.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “That is making a political football about it.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I think we can all be intellectually honest.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Aside A remark off to the side of the point. What the tags mean → “The stork brought it.” An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “Let me just close on that thought.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I yield back the balance of my time.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Relevance · 51
30 of 42 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.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “and due process, all things under attack by this administration.” Attacks the administration on free speech, press, and due process rather than addressing the nine-justice amendment.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Their gerrymandered Supreme Court, well, they have done all right sometimes, not as good as the district courts and the appeals courts have done.” Scores the court’s record against the speaker’s side instead of addressing the amendment.
Off point 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 have won more than 80 percent of the cases against President Trump in those courts,” Cites the speaker’s win rate against President Trump, unrelated to fixing the Court at nine justices.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “which is why they have been calling for the impeachment of judges, including Republican-appointed judges like Judge Boasberg, who was appointed by President Bush.” Discusses calls to impeach judges, not the composition amendment.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “They have called for his impeachment.” Repeats the impeachment point about Judge Boasberg, unrelated to the bill.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “That is making a political football out of it.” Continues the impeachment-of-judges digression as a political point.
Off point 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 have had colleagues who have put up posters to impeach this judge and impeach that judge.” Talks about colleagues’ posters urging judges’ impeachment, not the amendment.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “They wanted to have a hearing about it in the Judiciary Committee,” Discusses a Judiciary Committee hearing about impeaching judges, off the bill.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “where they are talking about it.” Continues the hearing digression.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “That is making a political football about it.” Concludes the impeachment digression rather than addressing the amendment.
Off point 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 think we can all be intellectually honest.” General exhortation introducing the digression’s wrap-up, not a point on the bill.
Off point 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 know after Brown v.” Begins a history of criticism after Brown v. Board, unrelated to the amendment.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Board, the right-wingers, the anti-integrationists said to impeach Earl Warren,” Continues the historical digression about impeaching Earl Warren.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “and the Republican platform for decades had language attacking the Supreme Court for Roe v.” Discusses the Republican platform attacking Roe v. Wade, not the bill.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Wade.” Completes the historical digression on past court criticism.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Where do you see in the Constitution anything about the President having immunity?” Pivots to attacking presidential immunity doctrine rather than the nine-justice amendment.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “When the Framers wanted to write immunity into the Constitution, they did it, like through the Speech and Debate Clause for Members of Congress.” Argues about the Speech and Debate Clause, not the amendment under debate.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Maybe that is what they are going to want to give up next, the Speech and Debate Clause protecting us from prosecution by the executive branch for saying things that he doesn’t like.” Speculates about giving up the Speech and Debate Clause, off the bill.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “That is not in the original Constitution.” Continues the immunity digression about what is in the Constitution.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “The President has it,” Discusses the presidential immunity claim, not the amendment.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “but they made it up.” Claims opponents ‘made up’ immunity, off the bill’s subject.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Where did that come from?” Rhetorical question continuing the immunity digression.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “The stork brought it.” Sarcastic aside about the stork, continuing the immunity attack.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “They invented it.” Repeats the claim that immunity was invented, off the amendment.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “They call themselves originalists.” Continues attacking opponents’ originalism rather than the bill.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “It wasn’t in the Federalist Papers.” Points to the Federalist Papers in the immunity digression, not the amendment.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “It wasn’t in the original Constitutional Convention records.” Continues the immunity digression about Constitutional Convention records.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “It is not in any of the ratified convention records.” Continues the same digression about ratified convention records.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Where did that doctrine come from?” Rhetorical question on the doctrine’s origin, off the bill.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “They made it up.” Repeats ‘they made it up,’ concluding the immunity digression.
Reasoning · 77
1 of 42 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.
Logical leap A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it. What the tags mean → “which shows this is just frivolous political confetti that is being thrown into the air.” One unanswered question about a vacant seat is used to carry the general claim that the whole proposal is not serious.
Conclusions found · 2
Conclusion “which shows this is just frivolous political confetti that is being thrown into the air.”
Because “For example, let’s say another Senate decides to do what Mitch McConnell did and hold a seat open for a year.”
“Now that we have written a number into the Constitution for the first time, does that mean that the Supreme Court can’t meet or can’t vote?”
“In other words, can the Supreme Court not operate if it doesn’t meet the magic number of nine?”
“They haven’t told us,”
Reason flawed One unanswered question about a vacant seat is used to carry the general claim that the whole proposal is not serious.
Conclusion “but nobody yet has made a single satisfactory argument about why we should freeze, for the first time in American history, the number of Justices at nine when it has always been up to the Representatives of the people in the House and the Senate.”
Because “one still searches in vain for a single justification for why we would surrender and abdicate yet another power that Congress has in the Constitution, this time freezing it into the cement of constitutional architecture for all time, that there will be nine Justices.”
“Now that we have written a number into the Constitution for the first time, does that mean that the Supreme Court can’t meet or can’t vote?”
“The Senate already gets some say over the Supreme Court by rendering the power of advice and consent.”
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 · 100
0 of 42 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.
Nothing lost points.
Claims · 11
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 “We have won more than 80 percent of the cases against President Trump in those courts” search 2 “Judge Boasberg, who was appointed by President Bush” search 3 “They have called for his impeachment.” search 4 “colleagues who have put up posters to impeach this judge and impeach that judge” search 5 “anti-integrationists said to impeach Earl Warren” search 6 “and the Republican platform for decades had language attacking the Supreme Court for Roe v.” search 7 “they voted for his immunity from felony crimes committed while in office” search 8 “like through the Speech and Debate Clause for Members of Congress” search 9 “That is not in the original Constitution.” search 10 “It wasn’t in the Federalist Papers.” search 11 “The Senate already gets some say over the Supreme Court by rendering the power of advice and consent.” search
