TranslatePolitics.com

Andy Biggs

Republican

“I want to pass an amendment that will decide how many Supreme Court Justices there are. There should be nine justices. That's my proposal.”

Andy Biggs

Republican

“I don't like that some people want to change the number of Supreme Court Justices. That's bad. Only nine justices, no more. I want to make it permanent. There is a right way to change things. Adding more justices is wrong. Some people are very bad. We must stop them. My amendment can do that.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's job is to tell the American people the truth about the law, even when that truth is unpopular, even when a President doesn't like it, and even when Congress doesn't like it. That only works if the Court is independent. Alexander Hamilton expressed this in Federalist 78. He explained that the courts must be insulated from the political branches or they cannot do their job of protecting the rights of the people. Disagreeing with the Supreme Court is not just legitimate. It is American. We amend the Constitution, or we pass new laws. We elect Presidents who appoint different judges. That is how you change outcomes you don't like. That is the process the Founders gave us. But there is a world of difference between changing the law and changing the rules of the game because you don't like the last call. Packing the Court is not simply a policy disagreement. It is an attempt to change the structure of one of the three branches of government in order to guarantee the outcome you want. That is not reform. That is revolution. Here is the question every American should ask: If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? What stops them from doing the same thing? As Justice Breyer said, this will start an ``arms race.'' Once you go down that road, the Court stops being an independent check on government power. It becomes another political institution controlled by whoever happens to hold the majority. We have already seen what this kind of rhetoric looks like. In 2020, Senator Schumer stood outside the Supreme Court and told Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: `` . . . you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price.'' That was a threat, a threat that goes well beyond any normal policy disagreement. Mr. Speaker, 2 years later, an armed man was arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh's home. Thankfully, law enforcement intervened before anyone was hurt. Words have consequences, and when political leaders convince people that the Supreme Court is illegitimate, some people take that rhetoric seriously. Some on the left aren't even hiding where this leads. The Democratic Socialists of America now openly call for abolishing the Senate and replacing the Presidency and the Supreme Court. I am not making that up. That is in their platform. Seeking to expand the Court is an admission that your arguments have not been good enough to persuade voters or your fellow legislators. We rely on a political process, including robust one-on-one debates, to convince voters that ours are the superior plans. When you can no longer convince enough voters that you have the best ideas, you have two choices: You can go back to voters with a better argument, or you can try to change the system so their vote doesn't matter as much. That is why the amendment before us is so important. It fixes the number of Justices at nine permanently. That is not because nine is a magic number. It is because a fixed Court cannot be expanded by whoever happens to win the next election. It makes the rule the same regardless of who is in power. To my friends on the other side of the aisle: We don't have to like every decision the Supreme Court makes. Heaven knows there are plenty of decisions I have disagreed with. That is not the point. The point is whether we are willing to live under a Constitution that limits our power even when we are the ones holding it. If we want to change the law, we can change the law, but we should not change the Supreme Court simply because we don't like the people sitting on it. Constitutional government requires accepting outcomes we don't like and fighting for change the right way: through elections, through legislation, and through the amendment process this very body is using today. Let's keep the Supreme Court independent. Let's keep it at nine Justices, and let's keep the Constitution bigger than whoever happens to be in power. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Andy Biggs

Republican 12:40 p.m.

“You don't like Trump. You want to change the number of Supreme Court Justices to get your way. That's Court packing. We want nine Justices, no more. The other side tried this before. Roosevelt tried to pack the Court to get his way. The Senate said no. They said it was dangerous. They said it went against the Constitution. We should keep the Court at nine Justices. That's what we've had for a long time. You want to change it now because you don't like the current Court.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I get it, that the gentleman does not like Donald J. Trump and that this is an ideological position he is taking, which is kind of what the scholars have said is the definition of Court packing. 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. This isn't new, this position that we are taking today. This was introduced in the 116th, which was under Donald Trump. It was introduced in the 118th, which was under Joe Biden. 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. Now, we have introduced this in the 119th. I do appreciate the gentleman talking about Arizona needs representation on the Supreme Court. 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. You can't even get an en banc there because they have 29 justices, appellate judges. You can't get an en banc in the Ninth because it is all random. Anyway, back to the point here, my colleagues on the other side tell us that the Supreme Court has changed before. They are right. However, there is an important piece of history that they leave out. For much of the 19th century, the size of the Supreme Court was tied to the size of the Federal judiciary. As the country expanded and Congress created new judicial circuits, Congress added Justices to help carry those responsibilities, but that changed in 1869. Congress fixed the Court at nine Justices, and for more than half of the length of this country, it has been nine Justices, regardless of the number of circuits. There is one historical example that matters most to the question before us today, 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. That was the birth, perhaps, of the attempt to have an imperial executive. 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. Everyone understood what was happening. 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. Here is what happened: The plan faced fierce opposition, including from members of Roosevelt's own party. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes pushed back. The Senate ultimately rejected the plan, and this is what they said--this is from the records today: ``We recommend the rejection of this bill as a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle.'' Not holding firm at nine, but because you wanted--not you, 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.'' Do you know what ``it'' was, the measure that they were so offended by? It was an attempt to pack the Court. Next time, I will probably start reading all the folks on the other side who want to do that very thing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mark Harris

Republican 12:50 p.m.

“I want to add to what my colleague said. The Supreme Court should have only nine Justices. Some people want to pack the Court. They want to do this to get power. We need to stop them. The Court needs to stay independent. It should protect our rights. It should follow the Constitution. We should not let the other side scare the Court. We should pass this amendment. It will keep the Court at nine Justices. That will protect the Court. That will protect our rights.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), for his leadership in this. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 1, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution that would require the Supreme Court of the United States to be composed of nine Justices. This action will uphold the Court's legitimacy, protect the checks and balances that defend our fundamental freedoms, and ensure that every American's rights will remain protected, regardless of who holds political power. For decades, we have heard calls from those unhappy with the ideological balance of the Supreme Court to pack the Court. The alarming rise of such calls should worry all of us because their objective is not to uphold ethical principles or even to protect individual rights but rather to consolidate power and intimidate the Court. Our Founders understood that liberty cannot survive when power goes unchecked. They therefore built a system of checks and balances, with an independent Supreme Court serving as a critical safeguard for the rights and freedoms of every American. The Court's role is not to advance a political party's agenda but to uphold the Constitution and protect liberty even when doing so means standing apart from the passions of the moment. At a time when our Supreme Court is facing ongoing and escalating attacks, Congress must and can act to defend it. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this proposed amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to support maintaining the integrity of the United States Supreme Court.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Andy Biggs

Republican 12:50 p.m.

“I don't agree with you. The court is not packed. Justices decide many cases together. They think about the Constitution. I don't want to talk about Trump.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do think it is a charming and quaint argument to say that President Trump has packed the Court. Here are some patterns that you need to know just from the last term alone: 50 percent of the cases decided were decided unanimously. That doesn't sound like a packed Court, and only 5 of 57 cases, just 8 percent, were decided 6-3 with six Republican appointees on one side and three Democrats on the other. Ninety percent of the 57 cases were decided with at least one liberal Justice in the majority, 90 percent. The three liberal Justices voted together in fewer than one-quarter of the nine unanimous cases. That doesn't sound like packing. That sounds like a lot of thoughtful folks on the United States Supreme Court rendering decisions they believe in and they believe comprise constitutional opinion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jim Jordan

Republican 12:50 p.m.

“I don't like Democrats. They want to change the court. They attack the court. I think this bill is good. I want to stop the Democrats. I have questions for the other side.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. It is planned, and it is orchestrated. The Democrats' systematic attack on the independence of the Court has been going on now for several years, and it started right where the sponsor of the legislation read from first, when he said that Senator Chuck Schumer said: ``I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh; you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.'' Guess where he said that, Mr. Speaker, the top Democrat in the government at the time, where did he say that? It was on the steps of the United States Supreme Court. Then, of course, 1 year later, Democrats--not just any Democrats, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee--introduced the bill to go from 9 to 13, the Court-packing bill. Why did they want to add four? Why not one? Why not two? Why not three? Why four? It is because they want to take the Court from a 6-3 conservative majority Court to a 7-6 liberal Court. It is all planned. Then, of course, we had the systematic attacks on two Justices in particular, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. They even had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee where they brought in the guy who was demonstrated to be a liar when he was trying to say that Justice Alito was involved in leaking an opinion. That was total garbage. Then, of course, we had the real leak, the Dobbs leak, on May 2, 2022. What happened after that? Mr. Speaker, 150 churches and crisis pregnancy centers around the country were attacked, not to mention the planned assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh in the aftermath of that leaked decision. This whole systematic, orchestrated, and planned attack on the independence of one of the separate but equal branches of our government is serious stuff. Then, of course, we now have the Democratic Socialists of America who want to get rid of the Court. They want to get rid of the Senate, and they want to replace the President. This is their party, the once great party. We mentioned FDR in this context, but in the broader context, the once great party of FDR and JFK is now controlled and is now anti- Israel, socialist, and all kinds of crazy ideas that go to the heart of what our country is about and our Constitution. This is a good piece of legislation. Maybe this is a question these guys want to answer, Mr. Speaker. Maybe they want to answer some of these questions. Do they support replacing the Presidency? Do they support replacing the Court? Do they support abolishing the United States Senate? That would be an interesting question for the folks on the other side. We know they want to pack the Court. Do they agree with the Democratic Socialists who want to abolish the Court? I thank the gentleman and also one of our other colleagues, Mr. Johnson from South Dakota, who has worked on this legislation for a long, long time. This is important. This is important because we know where they want to go. We should remember when the Democratic Socialist Mamdani was sworn in as mayor of our largest city 9 months and 2 days ago, he said: ``I was elected as a Democratic Socialist, and I will govern as a Democratic Socialist.'' These are their principles. Does my friend and colleague, Mr. Speaker, on the other side, controlling the time, the law professor, does he agree with what the Democratic Socialists are saying? That would be an important question for this body to understand. Mr. Speaker, I thank the guys who sponsored this legislation.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Ralph Norman

Republican 1:00 p.m.

“I support this amendment. I don't want more justices. I want things to stay the same. Court packing is bad. It was bad before. It's bad now. If we add justices now, we'll just keep adding more. That would be bad. We need to respect the court. We shouldn't change it when we don't like the rulings.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Biggs' constitutional amendment. As Congressman Jordan mentioned, this is serious business. Just like it is serious business about what the other party did on letting 20 to who knows illegals in this country to create a power base. That is who you are going to have to answer to, the public. That is who this country is paying for now. The 20 to 30, who knows, illegals in this country. Why don't you pass the SAVE Act, which is just a verification that you are an American citizen to vote? This is following a dangerous path, and I am glad the citizens are finally showing up to recognize the problem that we have with this. Just the other day, my Democratic colleague Jim Clyburn said he wants to pack the Court with 13 Justices. I couldn't disagree more. South Carolina doesn't need a baker's dozen of Supreme Court Justices. We need politicians to respect the independence of the nine that we already have. Court packing was a bad idea when FDR tried it in 1937. It is a bad idea today. Even members of his own party pushed back against this scheme. FDR wanted to reshape the Supreme Court that was standing in the way of his agenda. The same principle is at work here today: When you don't like the ruling, change the Court. The Constitution does not guarantee either party the Supreme Court decisions it wants. Losing a case is not justification for adding Justices. Thirteen is not some magic number. Once politicians start changing the size of the Court to get favorable rulings, there is no logical stopping point. Today it is 13. Tomorrow it could be 17 and then 21. That would turn the Supreme Court into just another political arm of Congress. Mr. Speaker, you don't protect democracy by changing the rules every time you lose. You protect it by respecting our institutions, even when you disagree with the outcomes. The answer is to take Court packing off the table permanently, which is why I support this.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Andy Biggs

Republican 1:10 p.m.

“You say we don't follow the constitution. But we are! We do it all the time. I don't know why you complain. Now I will let someone else talk.”

Dusty Johnson

Republican 1:10 p.m.

“I want to keep the Supreme Court at nine justices. Nine is a good number. I don't want the other party to make the court bigger. They want to pack the court to get power. That's bad. We should keep the court the same size. Even liberal justices want nine. I want this amendment to pass. I want the constitution to say nine justices.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today's debate has convinced me more than ever that we need to cap the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. Now, for the last 5 years, I have been a leader in this push to keep the nine, and I am thrilled we are taking this measure up today. In Washington, we have a habit of weaponizing everything for political advantage. Seemingly no norm is safe, and indeed prominent leaders on the other side of the aisle have promised us that they will pack the Court with four more Supreme Court Justices when they regain power. Now, the size of the Supreme Court should not be an arms race. It should not swell after an election to be able to grab some additional political power. That is the stuff of banana republics and authoritarian regimes. By the way, I am not making that up. You can look across the globe in recent history and you can see Hungary increasing their court to 15. You can see Turkiye increasing their court to 17. You can see Venezuela increasing their court to an eye-watering 32 justices in the pursuit of political power. This is not a theoretical threat. Let's look to history. For 150 years, nine Supreme Court Justices have served us well. The gentleman from Maryland indicates that there is no possible reason that somebody could support nine as the right number. Actually, Supreme Court Justices support nine as the number. They think that is the right size of the Court to have a collaborative, deliberative, functional Court. That is the Goldilocks spot, and it is not just conservative Justices who say it. Retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said nine was the right number, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, before her death, said nine was the right number. They are joined by thousands of legal minds across the political spectrum. That, the gentleman from Maryland should know, is the right reason to set nine. Today, we have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to heed those bipartisan calls, to remove a weapon in the hands of partisans, to defend and to protect a longstanding judicial norm, and to place the number of Supreme Court Justices as nine in our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I support the measure before us today. Let's keep the nine.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Harriet M. Hageman

Republican 1:10 p.m.

“I want this amendment. It would keep nine justices on the Supreme Court. The court has had nine members for 150 years. It blocks actions that threaten liberty. The other side wants to change the court. They want to pack it with political actors. That would end our Republic. We must stop them.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 1, proposing a constitutional amendment to maintain nine Justices on the United States Supreme Court. The composition of the Supreme Court has consistently been maintained at nine members for over 150 years, a period of time during which the Court issued some of its most important constitutional jurisprudence. Throughout these years, and as the Founders intended, the Court has served as a vital check on government power, blocking those actions that violate the Constitution and threaten individual liberty. We must remember that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. In recent years, however, and as the Supreme Court has correctly returned to its originalist roots, there are many on the left who have sought to politicize the Court. They justify their actions not because the Court's decisions do not fully comport with the Constitution but because such decisions undermine the leftist views of the world and the radical agenda as described repeatedly today by those on the other side. Their solution to losing these constitutional legal arguments isn't to seek to change the law but to attack the Supreme Court and threaten to pack it with judicial advocates. They thus seek to upend and eradicate 150 years of precedent to further their political agenda, an agenda that they have been unable to pursue through the legislative process. We know their agenda is both unwise and unpopular amongst the American people and will only serve to politicize a body that was always meant to be independent and impartial. Calls for packing the Supreme Court, whether it be from FDR over half a century ago or from elected Democrat officials in the 21st century, are designed to do one of two things: threaten and hold the Court hostage to control its decisions or to load it with political actors so as to change its nature entirely. Members of this body and the American public at large should recall that when one branch of government consumes another and controls its functions, the Republic ceases to exist and we descend into a state of tyranny, which is what the Democrats are seeking and especially the Democratic Socialists of America. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Biggs and Chairman Jordan for their leadership on this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 1.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Lauren Boebert

Republican 1:20 p.m.

“I don't want the other side to change the court size. They want more judges. That's bad. Our court system should be fair. The other side is not fair. They lost but want to change the rules. That is bad. The other side is bad. They are socialists. They are bad. Our country is not like the Third World. Socialists are bad. They want to control the court. They want to change our country. They opened our borders. The other side is radical. They are not fair. I want our side to win.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Supreme Court of the United States is not a partisan prize to be captured. It is an independent branch of our government, and it must remain impartial. 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. 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. We 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. This is what happens in the Third World, and it cannot happen here in America. Democratic Socialists, kind of an oxymoron, are on the rise, and they want to pack the Court so they can impose an agenda the American people never voted for. Look at what happened yesterday. Democrats could not even vote against socialism because their own party is overrun by self-proclaimed socialists. We already saw what the far left did under Joe Biden by opening our borders. Just 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. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Derek Schmidt

Republican 1:20 p.m.

“Some people say the Supreme Court is a rubber stamp for Trump. That's not true. The court stopped Trump from doing some things. Some Democrats agree with me. This used to be a bipartisan issue. It wasn't just a Republican or Democrat issue. I used to be attorney general. In 2020, I supported this measure. A Republican and a Democrat also supported it. I want to add some statements and letters to the record.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, you will hear from advocates of Court expansion that the Court is a mere rubber stamp for Trump. This is a Court that defied Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, to deport people without a hearing, to send troops to Chicago, to use emergency powers to impose tariffs, and to revoke birthright citizenship by executive order. Some of my colleagues on both sides may be surprised that I just uttered those words, but those are not my words. Those are the words of three of my former colleagues, three former State Democratic attorneys general, who strongly support the Keep Nine Amendment and disagree with my friends on the other side: Chris Gorman from Kentucky, Steve Rosenthal, and Tony Troy from Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is sad that until this Congress, this was a bipartisan issue. It wasn't a Republican issue. It wasn't a Democratic issue. Back when I served my State as attorney general in 2020, I wrote to the then-sponsors of this measure in this body and expressed my support for it, and it was a Republican from Virginia and a Democrat from Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I include both of these statements and letters in the Record at this point.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Derek Schmidt

Republican 1:20 p.m.

“I want to decide how many justices are on the Supreme Court. I think it should be nine. If we change this, it will make the Court political. The other side is complaining, but the Court is important.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I have long supported the Keep Nine Amendment because I think it is the right thing to do for our Republic. As has been stated here many times in today's somewhat jovial but I think very serious debate, turning the Supreme Court into a political football, whose size is expanded first by Republicans, then by Democrats, whoever has the political will and whoever is aggrieved at the moment will undermine that Court's ability to perform its unique and critical constitutional function. For all of the distress that my friends on the other side have right now in their complaints about the Court, I assure this body those will be magnified manyfold if we allow ourselves to get into a bidding war over the size of the institution across the street. Mr. Speaker, I have sat there seven times at counsel table. I have argued three causes. I have second-chaired four others--

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Derek Schmidt

Republican 1:20 p.m.

“I want this amendment to pass. It will make the number of justices stay at nine. We can't change it ourselves. The people must decide.”

Andy Biggs

Republican 1:30 p.m.

“My opponents want to pack the court with more justices. They say they don't like some recent decisions. But the court has worked fine with nine justices for a long time. If we change the number now, it will just lead to more and more changes later. Justice Breyer warned against that. He said court packing would become a political arms race. I want to prevent that by keeping the number at nine. Let the voters decide. I think everyone should support my amendment. It will protect the court from ideological changes.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consternation my colleague across the aisle has when he says that he hasn't found any arguments persuasive. Let me tell you something: He would never find any of these arguments persuasive because he wants to pack the Court. His very argument is that if you pass a constitutional amendment, you can never change the Constitution. It is absolutely one of the most specious arguments I have heard because if you amend the Constitution, guess what. Does that mean that that amendment itself, that you have brought in, can never be amended again? No, because the system is clear, the system that he has been arguing against this entire time. The system, the Constitution itself, allows us to say to the American people: We would like to amend the Constitution. We are going to give it to you. We think this should be done. Mr. Speaker, that is really what we are talking about here. We are talking about this failure to appreciate the position that they sit in. They say that this whole thing, quite frankly, has been about Donald Trump. That is what their whole argument against this has been. Oh, they passed this immunity clause. Where did that come from? Well, maybe stare decisis. That is what they argue. That is where the Court is. Take a peek at that. Yes, go back and read it. You will enjoy it. Here is the deal. They sit right now upset over a few decisions that this Supreme Court has made. They cannot accept that you have probably three conservatives, three liberals, and three in the middle. That is where the Court sits today. An amendment freezing this at nine, first of all, doesn't mean that you can never amend it again, but it also doesn't mean that these are going to be the same nine in perpetuity for eternity. They want to set aside a tradition that has been in place for over 150 years. They make this argument regarding the circuits. Guess what. Those circuits have changed and changed, but oddly enough, we have kept it at nine. Instead, they want to negate and have ignored what their personnel have said for the last few years, ever since Donald J. Trump was reelected, ever since you put some new people on the Court, even though, as we take a look, they are winning cases against this administration. Yet, they say that we have to take and expand this so we can get to 13. That is what they want. Why do they want it? It is because they want to make it progressive. They want to turn the Court around. They want to change its ideological principles or what they perceive to be ideological principles. That is what they want. They want to pack the Court. That is what packing is. It is where you put a number there. That is why Stephen Breyer said and that is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, no, don't do that. Justice Breyer said that if you do that and it is 13 next time, does it become 21 after that, or 50, or where does it end, because it becomes a political arms race at the Supreme Court. We are saying not to get into a political arms race. Let's make it permanently nine. Let's give it to the voters. That is a rational thing. It will never be persuasive to these folks, and that is too bad because guess what. This has been comfortable. The Biden administration was comfortable with nine. This particular provision was proposed in the 116th Congress, in the 118th Congress, and now again in the 119th Congress. It didn't matter whether there was a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. What it meant was let's make sure the Supreme Court is protected from those who want to change it ideologically. That is where they are. That is why everyone should be supporting this particular amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) that the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 1. The question was taken.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

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

Andy Biggs

Andy Biggs

Andy Biggs

Mark Harris

Andy Biggs

Jim Jordan

Ralph Norman

Andy Biggs

Dusty Johnson

Harriet M. Hageman

Lauren Boebert

Derek Schmidt

Derek Schmidt

Derek Schmidt

Andy Biggs