Dusty Johnson: “I thank the gentleman, and I thank leadership for making my bill a priority on the floor today. We have heard from a…”

“I thank the gentleman, and I thank leadership for making my bill a priority on the floor today. We have heard from a number of earlier speakers that recent Supreme Court decisions have upset the majority. These are decisions that they disagree with. Now, these are judicial decisions that were rendered under rules that have been in place for more than 150 years. But there seems to be a growing force of people who want to change the rules, that if we didn't get the decision we wanted under the rules that have been in place since 1869, then let's go ahead and change the rules. Let's go ahead and pack the Court. If nine Justices doesn't get what we want, then let's add two. Well, if maybe two more Justices doesn't get us what we want, then let's add four. Maybe we can get with four Justices the kinds of decisions we want. Madam Speaker, this is not a hypothetical boogieman. This is an actual pending legislation introduced by none other than the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It is an active attempt to pack the Court with 13 Justices. Now, you might ask, Madam Speaker, is 13 the right number? Does 13 come about because there has been some report or some analysis that 13 Justices would make the work of the Court more productive? Or perhaps the Supreme Court itself, the Justices, have indicated that they would do a better job with 13? No. No. It does not come about because of any independent analysis or request by the Court.…”