Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/02/2026 5:26:03 PM PDT by Libloather
WASHINGTON — House Democrats voted down a proposed constitutional amendment to lock in the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine.
The amendment failed in a 212-206 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority needed to get it through the lower chamber. Only one Democrat, Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, voted with Republicans in support of the proposed amendment.
Republicans brought up the constitutional amendment as part of an effort to accuse Democrats of seeking to pack the high court due to its conservative majority and tie them to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
“We will have them put their money where their mouth is,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters ahead of the vote. “There’s a couple of Democrats here in the House who have suggested that they’re not on board with the Democratic Socialists of America. Just a few.”
“They’re going to get a chance to show us.”
The DSA wants to abolish the Supreme Court and replace it with a judiciary that is “subordinate to Congress.” Republicans have been hammering Democrats over the rise of the DSA in primaries.
Their proposed amendment specifically locked in one chief justice and eight associate justices on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court originally began with six justices, but that was expanded, and its nine-seat makeup has been untouched since 1869, though Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to pack it in the 1930s.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Once again the swine step on a rake and get hit in the face.Johnson set the trap and they snapped at it. Our side is winning.
Same with the condemning socialism resolution. 4 democrats introduced it. I can dig it.
I wonder how they'd vote if the GOP proposed to expand it RIGHT NOW (thus giving President Trump four more nominations.)
I actually have some names in mind.
Fine. The Republicans should turn around and expand it to 15 then, while we still have a Republican president. Screw the Communists.
I can just see a cryptic tweet from Trump: “Democrats, be careful what you wish for.” and then after the midterms come out for expanding it.
Wow, an actually pro-active attack on Democrat scheming. Some Republicans are going to find their social function invitations lost in the mail. The horror. The horror.
Pointless effort.
If the ERA taught us anything, the bar to change the constitution is high for a reason.
Trump should nominate a 10th Justice. Then a DC federal circuit court judge could block it just for fun to drive left nuts
The idea the democRATs/DemoKKKrats would follow ANY law if it limited their goal of complete domination is ludicrous.
Rules, regulations, laws and statutes are for “others.”
If they ever get their wish, there will be faux elections. Everyone will be required to vote. Anyone not voting “correctly” will be re-educated until they get their mind right.
Is there ANYTHING that would get 2/3 of the votes in congress?
Most Americans don't know how close we came to losing it all after the 2020 coup. The RATs first bill was to nationalize elections. They also tried to kill the Filibuster. If not for two RAT senators refusing to do that we'd probably be in a Civil War right now.
I don’t know how to feel about this one. There are no instructions in the Constitution as to the makeup of the Supreme Court. I feel like an amendment to the Constitution to lock the number of justices at an arbitrary number is akin to the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 which locked the House at 435. That was NEVER the intent of the Founders, as evidence by Article the First, the very first amendment to the Constitution that still awaits ratification to this day.
Why lock any Federal agency to an arbitrary number? If it’s not covered by the Constitution, don’t do it.
The corollary argument in this article is a non-sequitur. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Abolishing justices is a stated goal of the DSA, but not passing a constitutional amendment doesn’t mean those who voted against it support that.
That is correct.
Obama was the last to get 2/3 vote in the Senate for Obamacare by getting McCain to switch his vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.