MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Dusty Johnson

Republican SD 2 statements translated

Dusty Johnson, a South Dakota Republican, has in these statements focused on institutional norms rather than a wide range of local or partisan issues: a constitutional amendment fixing the Supreme Court at nine justices, and a farewell speech centered on constituent service and staff. He makes his case with reasons and evidence, citing examples of foreign courts expanding to 15, 17, and 32 justices and quoting retired Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in support of nine, and he frames the issue as removing a weapon from whichever party holds power. He does criticize Democrats directly, saying prominent leaders ‘have promised us that they will pack the Court with four more Supreme Court Justices,’ but his attacks stay on the policy rather than on individuals, and his rhetoric leans on service and results (‘specialized in getting things done’) rather than media or partisan combat. One limitation: only two statements are available, one of which is largely personal tribute, so the picture of his day-to-day issue focus and responsiveness in debate is thin.Written by AI from their statements. Updated 2026-10-17.

Not enough statements graded yet for an average.

Statements 2

House of Representatives · 2026-09-15

Farewell to Congress

“I am leaving Congress in January. I am grateful for the staff who worked with me over the last eight years to serve the people of South Dakota. I will not miss the politics or the cameras, but I will miss the people.”

“Mr. Speaker, a leader’s strength is never his own. It is borrowed from the courage, the talent, and the integrity of those who walk with him. The last 8 years have proven that to me time and time again. I have had many blessings in life, but none quite like the people who I have worked with. I will start with our brilliant casework team: Andrea Rose-Prehn, Reid Rasmussen, Danica Allmer, and Aimee Hoyle. They have each helped hundreds of South Dakotans get the treatment they deserve from our Federal Government. The work is complex. It is frustrating, and nobody does it better than they do. In 2023, they won the top award for outstanding constituent service in Congress. Aimee, Danica, Reid, and Andrea have improved countless lives, and I cannot thank them enough. Our D.C. team is extraordinary, too. In each of the last three Congresses, they were named the number one most effective office in one policy area or another. With 435 offices, being number one isn’t that easy. Some offices specialize in social media hot takes or partisan attacks, but Sydney Powers, Mason Ohnstad, Kristen Blakely, Andrew Rasmussen, and Jon Sundet specialized in getting things done. They are brilliant, funny, and driven. They have helped govern in an era where governing is not easy. It is not just our current team who has been excellent. We have remarkably little turnover in our office, but we have some great alums. When I think back to those who gave more than 2 years to us--Jazmine Kemp, Alana Lomis, Hannah Hulehan, John Weber, Nathanael Monroe, and Chance Hunley--I am proud. They did incredible things with our team, and they have done incredible things since. Our experiences will always bind us together, and I am happy for that and how many experiences there have been. I look at our team today, and I am touched. Most of us have been here since day one, 8 years ago. Mr. Speaker, 8 years is an eternity in this crazy time and in this crazy place. We have fought, worked, and laughed together. We have celebrated 8 weddings, 12 births, and 6 high school graduations. What a joy it has been to live life alongside these great people. I will close by talking about our senior team: Andrew Christianson, Elizabeth Walters, Courtney Heitkamp, Chelsea Schull, and Katie Neff. I cannot believe that leaders of their caliber have dedicated 8 years of their lives to our office and to working with me. I am so odd, so particular, and so demanding. How have they done it? I have leaned on these leaders every single day, and they have never let me down--never. I have never had cause to question their heart, work ethic, loyalty, integrity, or patriotism. Andrew, Elizabeth, Courtney, Chelsea, and Katie are the finest humans who I have ever met. Mr. Speaker, there is still much to be done in the 119th Congress, and I promise I will keep working hard for South Dakota until the very end, but when this chapter of my life closes in January, I will not miss the shutdowns, the political posturing, or the TV cameras. I will miss the people, the very best people.”

Speech in the House

Signal 26 of 100

Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysis

House of Representatives · 2026-09-02

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

“I want to amend the Constitution to set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. Politicians should not add more judges just to gain power. Nine judges have worked well for 150 years, and both liberal and conservative justices have agreed it is the right size.”

“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.”

Speech on a bill

Reasoning 100 of 100

This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis