Keep the Nine
By Rep. Dusty Johnson
April 16, 2020
At the start of the 117th Congress when control of the Senate and White House changed, I had concerns regarding legislation coming down the pipeline. I saw politically-motivated changes to the Supreme Court coming from a mile away – that’s why the first bill I introduced this year was to safeguard the Supreme Court by capping the number of justices at nine. We’ve had nine justices since 1869 – nine justices are the right number for deliberation – and in recent years both Justice Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have agreed.
Unfortunately, my intuition was correct and yesterday, prominent House and Senate Democrats introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court to thirteen justices. I’m strongly opposed to this proposal – the size of the court shouldn’t bounce up and down based on who has won the most recent election. We’ve weaponized almost everything in our modern political system, but our courts have managed to stay somewhat above this fray. We shouldn’t endanger that tradition with court packing.
Speaker Pelosi said she would not bring the bill to pack the court to the House floor for a vote – that’s the right call. However, just this week, President Biden announced a commission to examine what impact expanding the court may have on our country. I’m hopeful this commission will follow the advice of Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, people who spent their lives adjudicating our laws, and recommend maintaining a nine-seat Supreme Court.
I won’t take that chance though which is why I’ve been building a coalition to protect the court in the House of Representatives. My bill to “Keep the Nine” has more than 140+ cosponsors has gained serious traction amongst like-minded conservatives.
Our Supreme Court can’t become a political football every time power shifts in Washington. We can’t risk compromising public trust of the highest court in the land, that’s why I support keeping the nine.
###
Dusty Johnson claims to be a workhorse but is just a wannabe show pony.
He was just named the most effective Republican in Congress on agriculture issues.
One has to wonder where this commitment to tradition was for the Garland nom. Amazing how it’s “politics” when it’s the other team spitting in the eye of tradition but not when your team does. Utter hypocrite.
He was in the private sector during the Garland nomination. I’m not sure we can hold him accountable for the actions of a Senate he wasn’t serving in.
Te Garland nomination was within the rules…..end of story. This is fundamentally changing the rules like the Democrats want to do ona number of fronts because they don’t like the outcome. Look at all the Democrat led ballot measures in this state for a prime example.
The way the Senate handled the Garland nomination was wrong, but there is a substantial, qualitative difference between that and packing the court with four new justices.
I don’t think this will go though, but if it does we need to get our pitchforks and head to the streets.
100 Republicans…should be the whole caucus….why can’t they get the rest?
On the other hand–more grandstanding as they are in the minority and can’t do anything.