In a decisive vote on Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would set the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices. The amendment, which sought to codify the current nine‑justice composition, received 212 votes in favor and 206 against, failing to achieve the two‑thirds majority required under suspension of the rules.
Partisan reactions
Republicans framed the defeat as a victory for preserving the independence of the nation’s highest court. The Republican Study Committee, a 188‑member caucus, posted on social media that Democrats were attempting to “stage a takeover of an institution built to stay above politics” by stacking the bench with judges aligned with their “radical base.” The statement called the effort “un‑American” and contrary to the principles on which the country was founded.
Democrats, for their part, argued that the amendment was a distraction from more pressing concerns and an attempt to strip Congress of a power it has exercised since the Republic’s founding. Representative Jamie Raskin (D‑MD) warned that the measure would “abdicate a power assigned to us by the Framers” and likened it to pleasing a “would‑be king.” He noted that Congress has historically adjusted the Court’s size, ranging from six to ten justices.
Historical context
The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices, leaving that authority to Congress. Over the nation’s history, Congress has altered the Court’s composition several times to reflect political, geographic, and demographic shifts. House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D‑MA) emphasized that the current proposal was not a serious effort to improve the constitutional system but rather another attempt by House Republicans to surrender congressional oversight of both the President and the Court.
While the amendment failed, the debate highlighted ongoing partisan tensions over the judiciary’s role and the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches. Both parties continue to use the issue as a political cudgel, underscoring the deep divisions that characterize contemporary federal policymaking.
Original reporting: KTBS 3 (Shreveport) — read the source article.
