Sep.04

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

Ties 3

GOP 46

In Congress: Johnson Just Loves This Kangaroo (Supreme) Court

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) don't have much in common, but there is at least one thing: They both have the unenviable task of following a legend. Johnson, of course, is Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) successor as speaker. Jeffries is her successor as leader of the Democratic caucus. In the last week or so, both men have reminded us that the Speaker Emerita made those jobs look way easier than they really are.

We wrote about Jeffries' very un-Pelosi-like misstep last week, so today, Johnson gets to be the star of the show. Yesterday, continuing his strategy of not actually doing much of anything, and just putting up messaging bills, the Speaker brought to the floor a bill that would be the first step in adopting a new Constitutional amendment. And what the proposed amendment would do is take away the right of Congress to set the size of the Supreme Court, permanently fixing the number at nine justices. The vote failed, along mostly party lines, with 212 in favor, 206 opposed. While 212-206 is a majority, it's not close to the two-thirds supermajority needed for an amendment.

Again, we understand this was just a messaging bill, and so was never supposed to become law. But, at least from where we sit, it was a huge error. Here is our list of reasons, for readers' consideration:

1. Such a messaging bill would seem to serve no purpose. The people who want the Supreme Court to stay as it is know full well that they need to vote Republican this year and in 2028. If the 2026 election returns a Democratic Senate, no new right-wing justices if a seat opens up. If the 2028 election returns a Democratic trifecta, then all bets are off.
   
   
2. The size of the Supreme Court is not at issue right now, and won't be until 2029 at the earliest. Nobody believes the Democrats can do anything on this until they have the trifecta (and even then, it's dodgy).
   
   
3. If there are changes to the rules governing the Supreme Court, they are going to come via a new Judiciary Act. There is absolutely no way that an amendment is adopted. So, Johnson is dangling something that he knows he can't deliver, and so setting his voters up to be disappointed. The trick is to under-promise and over-deliver, Mr. Speaker, not vice-versa.
   
   
4. Even if the number of justices is capped at nine, there are other ways that a Democratic trifecta could defang the current Supreme Court, should it come to that. The most obvious one, which could be achieved via normal order, would be to severely limit the jurisdiction of the Court. So, even if Johnson could wave his hands and cause this amendment to become law, it still wouldn't "solve" his problem.
   
   
5. Johnson has just handed the Democrats a big, juicy talking point. It goes something like this: "The Republicans KNOW that the Court is not calling balls and strikes, and is grossly partisan. And the GOP is desperately trying to maintain that by amending the Constitution."

It's the last one that we think is the really bad misstep here.

We accept entirely that we are just two academics who never managed to get themselves elected to Congress, much less chosen as Speaker of the House. And we know that the virtuosity of Pelosi can seriously color judgment of those who followed her. Still, we think Johnson blew it here, even worse than Jeffries did by meeting with Jared Kushner. (Z)