Mary Gay Scanlon · TranslatePolitics.com

House of Representatives

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

“I don't want this amendment. It will lock in a court I don't like. I want the court to do what I like. The people I talk to want that too. I think the court is bad. It takes away rights. It helps people I don't like. I want the court to do what the people want. I don't want this amendment to pass. I think there are other ways to get the court I want.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, as 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. 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, or more, a rightwing majority, which has engaged in an unprecedented assault on Supreme Court norms and our constitutional order. 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. 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. The 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, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this measure.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

House of Representatives

Providing for Consideration of (H.R. 139) Sunshine Protection Act of 2025; Providing for Consideration of (H.R. 8595) National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act...

2026-07-14

“I want states to be able to choose permanent daylight saving time. I think this bill is bad. It affects everyone. We should use science and history to make a choice. Our choice should be good for people's health, especially children. So I say vote no on this bill and no on the rule.”

“I want to talk about a bill to stop changing clocks. People don't like changing their clocks. But this bill is bad. It makes daylight saving time all the time. That is bad. It will be dark in the morning. People won't like that. Kids will go to school in the dark. People will drive to work in the dark. That is dangerous. We tried this before in 1974. It was bad then too. It didn't save energy. People got in accidents. People didn't like it. Doctors say it is bad for our sleep. It makes people sick. People in my district don't want this. They want standard time all the time. A poll says most Americans want that too. So I have a different bill with Pat Harrigan. Our bill will stop changing clocks and use standard time all the time.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, as I think we can all tell from the ensuing debate here, there are serious issues that this body needs to be wrestling with, but the Speaker has chosen to put on the floor this week H.R. 139, a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent. I think there is one thing everyone in this Chamber can agree on: Americans do not like changing their clocks twice a year. The big question isn't whether we should ditch the switch; it is how. Unfortunately, the bill that the Speaker has chosen chooses the wrong solution by making daylight saving time permanent nationwide while denying States the right to enact permanent standard time if they so choose--not if, but when they discover that Congress made the wrong choice. We can all understand the appeal of an extra hour of sunlight in the summer, but permanent daylight saving time comes with serious health and safety concerns with even darker winter mornings. If this bill becomes law, winter mornings across the country are going to look very different. Millions of Americans will wake up during the winter months in complete darkness, with the Sun not rising until long after people get up and travel to school or work or have to go about their days. In much of upstate and northern New York, communities will not see the Sun rise until well after 8:30 a.m. In Michigan, it will be close to 9 before the Sun comes up. In parts of the Pacific Northwest, sunrise will be pushed even later than 9 a.m. In many parts of the country, children will be waiting for schoolbuses in darkness. Parents will be driving to work before sunrise. Morning commuters, students, and pedestrians will be starting their day in the dark, not because of the seasons, but because Congress decided to move the clock instead of following the Sun. We don't have to speculate about what would happen under permanent daylight saving time. We already tried it. During the 1974 energy crisis, Congress made daylight saving time permanent in a failed attempt to save energy. It lasted less than a year. Families found themselves sending their kids to school in the dark, and there was a rash of fatal crashes involving schoolchildren. Communities raised serious safety concerns, and public support, which initially was quite strong, quickly collapsed. Congress repealed the policy within months. The science has only become clearer since then. Medical and scientific experts have endorsed the move to permanent standard time because permanent daylight saving time disrupts our natural circadian rhythms, the internal clocks that regulate when we sleep and wake. That disruption has been linked to higher rates of heart disease, stroke, chronic sleep deprivation, and other adverse health concerns. These bad outcomes are even more serious and long-lasting than the sleep deprivation, traffic accidents, and heart attacks that follow the twice-yearly changes that we currently have. I have also heard directly from my constituents. Like most Americans, they are ready to ditch the switch, but when I ask which permanent system they would prefer if they had to choose, the clear preference was for standard time. A Gallup poll last year found that Americans preferred permanent standard time to permanent daylight saving time by 2-to-1. That is why I have introduced the bipartisan Sunshine for Our Kids Act with Representative Pat Harrigan. Our bill would end the clock changes and make standard time the national default.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗