House Democrats overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would have permanently fixed the United States Supreme Court at nine justices.
The vote preserved the left’s option of adding seats whenever the Court delivers rulings Democratic leaders dislike.
The measure failed by a vote of 212 to 206, nowhere near the two thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment to clear the House.
Nearly every Democrat stood together against permanently protecting the Court’s current size.
Only Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina broke ranks and joined Republicans in supporting the proposal.
His vote left him as the lone House Democrat willing to close the door on future court expansion.
The proposed amendment, H.J. Res. 28, was direct and remarkably brief. Its operative language contained one sentence: “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices.”
If ratified, the amendment would prevent a future president and congressional majority from manufacturing additional Supreme Court seats.
That practice, commonly called court packing, would allow politicians to reshape the judiciary whenever its decisions become politically inconvenient.
House Speaker Mike Johnson made clear before the vote that Republicans wanted Democrats on the record.
Johnson told reporters Tuesday that the proposal would force Democrats to “put their money where their mouth is” concerning the Court’s independence.
The answer from all but one House Democrat was a resounding no.
When offered a clear opportunity to eliminate court packing as a future political weapon, Democrats protected the weapon instead.
That refusal matters because leading Democrats have openly discussed sweeping changes to the Supreme Court if their party regains control of Congress.
Their complaints have intensified as the current Court has rejected several priorities embraced by the progressive movement.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in August that “dramatic” Supreme Court reform is “necessary.”
He also indicated that Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland would lead that campaign as House Judiciary Committee chairman if Democrats retake the chamber.
Jeffries notably refused to remove any proposal from consideration.
“There’s a variety of different options that are on the table,” Jeffries said.
“And I think that we can’t foreclose any single one of them.”
Wednesday’s vote offered Democrats the chance to foreclose one particularly dangerous option, adding seats to secure a preferred ideological majority.
Instead, they overwhelmingly chose to keep that option available for the next Democratic power grab.
Republicans argued during debate that expanding the Court would destroy public confidence in judicial independence.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio described court expansion as an attack on the Court’s “independence.”
The basic concern is not complicated.
If every party responds to an unfavorable ruling by creating more seats, the Supreme Court becomes another political committee whose membership changes according to election results and partisan frustration.
Democrats countered that permanently setting the Court at nine seats would interfere with Congress’ constitutional authority.
WATCH:
They also complained that the amendment would preserve the current six to three conservative majority, revealing exactly why the possibility of expansion remains attractive to them.
Raskin accused Republicans of engaging in “court packing on steroids,” citing the Senate’s refusal to hold a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland in 2016.
He also pointed to the later confirmation of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees.
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania offered a similar argument against the amendment.
“This proposed constitutional amendment would undermine our system of checks and balances,” Scanlon said, calling it a “grave mistake” to approve a measure that would “permanently tie Congress’ hands.”
The Republican proposal did not protect any particular ideological majority or party.
It simply established nine as the permanent number of justices, regardless of who occupies the White House or controls Congress.
Democrats nevertheless voted almost unanimously to preserve a path toward expansion.
For a party that constantly lectures Americans about norms and institutional integrity, refusing to safeguard the Court from naked partisan manipulation is quite the performance.
The vote should command attention well beyond Capitol Hill because it reveals how Democratic leaders view government power.
Institutions are apparently sacred only while they produce outcomes the left considers acceptable.
The coming congressional elections will determine far more than attitudes toward Donald Trump.
Voters will decide whether Washington should protect stable constitutional institutions or allow frustrated politicians to rewrite the rules whenever power slips from their grasp.
