House Democrats Vote To Preserve Supreme Court At Nine Justices Until Democrats Get Around To Changing It

House Democrats voted Wednesday to block a constitutional amendment that would permanently lock the Supreme Court at its current nine justices, apparently deciding that nine is perfectly acceptable as long as Democrats retain the option of making it 13 or more later.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), needed a two-thirds majority because, inconveniently, it would actually amend the Constitution. It received 212 votes to 206, falling well short of the required threshold, with all but one House Democrat voting against it.

The proposed amendment was remarkably straightforward. It would state, “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.”

Biggs explained that the amendment was necessary because Democrats [aka progressives, aka leftists] have increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court that occasionally issues rulings they do not like, leading some on the left to propose the time-honored solution of simply adding enough new justices until the correct answer appears.

“If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes its rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? That’s why I’m urging my colleagues to support my resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently fix the number of Supreme Court Justices at Nine,” he said.

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) urged Democrats to reject the amendment, arguing that permanently keeping the Court at nine justices would deprive Congress of the ability to change the number whenever circumstances, election results or disappointing judicial opinions make it necessary.

Comrade Clark

“This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, stripping Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives,” the leftist argued, adding that discussing the size of the Supreme Court could distract Congress from more pressing matters such as affordability, which apparently has nothing to do with the number of Supreme Court justices.

Of course, the Constitution itself does not specify how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. Congress has historically handled that little detail.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the Court with six justices. Congress added a seventh in 1807, increased the number to nine in 1837, and then added a tenth during the Civil War in 1863.

Congress subsequently reduced the number to seven in 1866, partly to prevent President Andrew Johnson from filling vacancies. In 1869, the Judiciary Act restored the Court to nine justices, where it has remained ever since.

That consistency apparently became suspicious.

Back in the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding as many as six additional justices to the Court after the existing justices repeatedly ruled against portions of his New Deal agenda. The proposal became known as the infamous court-packing plan, although it might more accurately be described as an early attempt to discover how many Supreme Court seats were required to produce the desired constitutional interpretation.

The plan generated enough backlash, including from members of Roosevelt's own party, that it was eventually abandoned.

Nearly a century later, however, court packing has returned, this time with considerably less embarrassment.

“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said. “Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Nothing says respect for the constitutional underpinnings of the nation quite like ordering a few extra Supreme Court seats from the judicial bakery.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has also indicated support for a 13-member Court, suggesting that the idea is gaining momentum among Democrats who apparently view the current nine justices as less of a constitutional institution and more of an insufficiently large focus group.

Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) was the only Democrat to vote for Biggs' amendment. Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who normally caucuses with Republicans, voted against it.

For now, therefore, the Supreme Court remains at nine justices.

Not because Democrats have suddenly concluded that nine is the ideal number.

Not because they have discovered some timeless constitutional principle requiring it.

And certainly not because they have decided that voters should not be able to change the Court's composition through the creative use of congressional arithmetic.

The Court remains at nine because, for the moment, Democrats do not have the votes to make it larger.

Should the political winds change, however, Americans can apparently expect the nation's highest court to undergo the same basic transformation as a congressional seating chart: If you don't like the outcome, simply add more chairs until you do.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

How Zohran Mamdani can be removed from office

This smile is the main reason he got elected

I asked Grok this question: Can New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani be removed from office? The following is what the AI responded and put in my own words:

The New York City mayor can't be "impeached" in the way we think of the term from the federal level or even the state governor's process; no legislative trial, no articles voted up or down by a City Council acting as a Senate. The NYC Charter and state law don't provide for anything that dramatic or theatrical. Instead, there are two paths to showing a mayor the door, and both are more about removal for cause than a full-blown political spectacle.

First, and by far the most straightforward (if politically explosive), is the governor's power. 

Under Section 9 of the City Charter, and backed by the state Constitution (Article XIII, sections 5 and 13) plus Public Officers Law §33, the governor of New York can simply remove the mayor. It's broad, almost sweeping authority with remarkably few guardrails. The process is this: the governor lays out charges (misconduct, corruption, dereliction of duty, whatever the executive deems sufficient), serves them on the mayor, and gives the target a chance to respond at a hearing. While that's pending, the governor can suspend the mayor for up to 30 days. If the charges stick after due process, out goes the mayor.

This isn't some theoretical relic; it's real authority, exercised rarely but memorably. Think back to 1932, when Governor Franklin Roosevelt had Mayor Jimmy Walker in his sights over bribery and corruption allegations. Walker resigned before the axe fell, but the threat was credible. Courts haven't cabined this power much, so the governor has wide discretion on what qualifies as removable offenses. In the context of recent events (say, federal indictments hanging over City Hall), people have pointed to Governor Kathy Hochul's leverage here, even if political realities make pulling the trigger a high-wire act. It's easy on paper, potentially devastating in practice.

The second route is the City Charter's "Committee on Mayoral Inability," a clunkier, more internal mechanism designed for incapacity rather than outright malfeasance. This five-member panel includes the Corporation Counsel, the Comptroller, the City Council Speaker, a deputy mayor picked by the sitting mayor (talk about a potential conflict), and the longest-serving borough president. 

If four out of five agree that the mayor is temporarily or permanently unable to discharge the duties of the office, whether from health issues, legal entanglements that paralyze governance, or misconduct that renders effective leadership impossible, they can refer it to the full City Council.

Then the Council weighs in: a two-thirds vote (at least 34 of 51 members) is needed to confirm permanent removal or a suspension. It's a high bar, deliberately so, to avoid rash or partisan overreach. No mayor has ever been permanently ousted this way, which tells you how politically fraught and logistically challenging it would be, especially with that mayor-selected deputy potentially acting as a loyal blocker. But no mayor has been so far to the left and so obviously antisemitic as the present clown in office.

In either scenario, removal doesn't require a criminal conviction; charges or a finding of incapacity suffice, with due process baked in to satisfy constitutional concerns. If it happens, the Public Advocate steps in as acting mayor, and a special election follows for a permanent replacement. The system prioritizes stability over swift political justice; stability for the city, headaches for everyone else involved.

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free. So is checking out the advertisers on the blog.

Bottom line: no impeachment circus, just two very different levers, one gubernatorial sledgehammer, one cumbersome city committee, and neither gets pulled lightly. But when the pressure builds, as it has in recent years, those options suddenly look a lot more real.

The garbage is piling up on the streets; five thousand NYPD hiring slots are not going to be filled; and the calls to Islamic prayer are being blasted on city streets. 

The dead from 911 are rolling in their graves.

Tweet