Johnson’s First Bill in 117th Congress to Set Supreme Court at Nine 

@SoDakCampaigns

Johnson’s First Bill in 117th Congress to Set Supreme Court at Nine 

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) introduced a constitutional amendment which limits the size of the U.S. Supreme Court to nine Justices. In recent months, there have been calls to “pack the court” following the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

“Since 1869, our Supreme Court has had nine Justices,” said Johnson. “We are living in a hyper-partisan world and Democrat leaders have already called for additional seats on the court. The control of the Senate hangs in the balance and if Democrats are successful in Georgia, we could very well see efforts to pack the Supreme Court. We must preserve the impartiality of the Supreme Court and setting the court at nine will do just that. My constitutional amendment is more necessary than ever.”

Johnson discusses his constitutional amendment in front of the Supreme Court.

Johnson’s House Joint Resolution is cosponsored by Reps. Randy K. Weber (TX-14), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Kelly Armstrong (ND-AL), Dan Meuser (PA-09), Debbie Lesko (AZ-08), Jeff Duncan (SC-03), Mike Kelly (PA-16), August Pfluger (TX-11), Fred Keller (PA-12), David Joyce (OH-14), Brian Babin (TX-36), and John Ketko (NY-24). It is also endorsed by Freedom Works. Text can be found here.

###

6 thoughts on “Johnson’s First Bill in 117th Congress to Set Supreme Court at Nine ”

  1. The Republicans have effectively packed the court, so go figure they would want to prevent the Democrats doing the same. I wish both parties would focus on making the court truly nonpartisan, though I have no clue just how that might be possible.

    1. Hey, learn definitions before you spout something idiotic.

      A simple lesson: packing the court is putting more judges on the court than are originally on the court; the Republicans simply filled a vacancy.

      Simple enough that even you should be able to understand, but I don’t hold out any hope.

      I assume that you don’t concern yourself about whether a judge actually supports our Constitution, but some of us do care. The Democrat-appointed judges and sometimes the lackluster John Roberts look at the Constitution as an impediment to screwing up the country.

      2. From SupremeCourt.gov-
        ‘Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.’
        Just because an appointed justice comes to a conclusion that I don’t agree with, does not imply that the intent of that justice is to ‘screw up the country’. On the contrary, each justice is appointed on their ability to interpret the principles of the Constitution, independent of, and unfettered by, partisan politics- even though those who appoint them often do so, as your comment seems to imply, with the expectation that decisions will favor one political bias or another. Is it possible the rancor directed at Justice Roberts and the other Democratic justices is a reflection of your own interpretation of the Constitution – in other words: your own bias- and not theirs? Put another way: would you rather accept an interpretation of our Constitution from the 9 professional Justices on the Court or some jackass named ‘Anonymous’?

Comments are closed.