09/05/2026
THE MOTHER OF ALL BAD IDEAS, FROM TODAY'S DEMOCRAT PARTY; EXPAND THE SUPREME COURT. To address this monumentally stupid idea, on September 2, 2026, the House of Representatives voted on H.J.Res. 1, a proposed constitutional amendment that would have permanently fixed the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices. All Republicans voted in favor, while 1, yes, I said 1, Democrat voted in favor, with 205 voting against. Just when you thought Democrats couldn't be more radical, they've decided that the only way to implement their socialist agenda is to undermine the Constitution by increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices from nine to some unspecified number when they gain control of the Presidency and Congress.
If you love America and believe in fildelity to the Constitution, you can't give Democrats political power.
From today's Wall Street Journal:
The future of the Supreme Court is on the ballot in November, as Democrats keep showing, over and over. On Wednesday, the House voted on a proposal to amend the Constitution to fix the Court at nine Justices, its size since 1869. Passing an amendment takes a two-thirds majority as a first step. This failed, 212-206, with all but a lone Democrat saying no.
As a messaging vote brought up by Republicans, it was revealing. āMAGAās proposal is to strip Congress of all authority in the matter, to freeze it and cement it permanently in the constitutional architecture for all time, with the suddenly magic number, nine,ā Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said on the floor. āWhatās going on here? Well, surprise, surprise, America, itās another partisan power grab by MAGA.ā
Mr. Raskin also brought up the superficial talking point that since the country has 13 appeals courts, it should have 13 Justices. āThere are no Justices from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has 67 million Americans living there,ā he said. āFive of the Justices today come from the New York City metropolitan area, basically one for each borough. Is it really possible that there are not people from other parts of the country who could effectively and honorably serve on the Supreme Court?ā
This argument is ridiculous, as in deserving of ridicule. When America was young, Supreme Court Justices spent part of each year āriding circuit,ā hearing cases far afield from Washington, D.C., so the numbers matched. But that era effectively ended 135 years ago. In 1982 lawmakers set up the nationwide Federal Circuit to hear specialized appeals, such as patent disputes. It has no geographic base. And what if Congress someday splits the unwieldy Ninth Circuit? Then 14 Justices?
Mr. Raskin knows all of this. He taught constitutional law for decades. Heās cynically hoping that listeners less familiar with legal history will find the argument for 13 Justices compelling, despite its making no sense.
Thereās something to be said for Court nominees with little known hometowns and degrees that donāt say Harvard or Yale, but Mr. Raskinās real concern isnāt geographic diversity. Try to imagine his response if President Trumpās next Supreme Court nominee were, say, the Ninth Circuitās conservative Judge Lawrence VanDyke.
The Democratic drive to pack the Court is about power, plain and simple. The Justices in todayās 6-3 majority are deciding cases based on the law as they see it. That includes landmark rulings against President Trump on tariffs, birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, and much more. Yet Mr. Raskin and his friends dislike the Courtās decisions on abortion, free political speech, the colorblind Constitution, and the separation of powers.
Disagreement is part of life in a healthy republic. The difference is that Democrats are preparing to wreck the Court and destabilize Americaās legal system to get their way. There is nothing inherently āmagicā about the number nine.
But there is something magic about the rule of law in a judiciary that has had nine Justices for a century and a half. If Democrats nuke the Senateās filibuster in 2029, pack the Court to 13 Justices, and get a new Roe v. Wade, do they think Republicans will simply sigh and let bygones be bygones?
Since Mr. Raskin poses as a defender of democracy, he might want to ruminate on what happens to a country when it turns its courts into a plaything of its politicians.