This constitutional amendment would permanently set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. It requires ratification by three-fourths of the states within seven years.
Andy Biggs
Representative
AZ-5
This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. The composition would include one chief justice and eight associate justices. For the amendment to be enacted it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years of being submitted.
Constitutional Amendment Proposed to Fix Supreme Court Size at Nine Justices: Ratification Needed Within Seven Years
This bill pitches a change to the U.S. Constitution: locking in the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. That's one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, the same setup we've had for a while now. To take effect, this amendment needs a thumbs-up from three-fourths of the states (that's 38 out of 50) within seven years of being proposed.
Court Composition: Keeping It at Nine
The core of this proposal is stability. By fixing the number of justices at nine, the bill aims to eliminate any future political maneuvering to change the Court's size. Think of it like this: if you're running a small business, you want to know the rules of the game aren't going to change on you suddenly. This amendment tries to do the same for the Supreme Court, ensuring its makeup isn't subject to the shifting tides of politics.
Real-World Ripple Effects
So, what does this mean for regular folks? Imagine you're a teacher, a construction worker, or a coder. Your life might not seem directly tied to the Supreme Court, but their decisions impact everything from workplace rights to environmental regulations. By setting the number of justices, this amendment aims for a more predictable Court. It's about preventing any single political party from drastically altering the Court's balance, which could lead to major shifts in how laws are interpreted and applied to everyday life.
The Ratification Race
Now, here's where it gets interesting. The bill sets a seven-year clock for states to ratify the amendment. This timeframe, as stated directly in the bill's text, isn't just a suggestion—it's a hard deadline. This could put pressure on state legislatures, kind of like a ticking clock in an escape room. It also means that if enough states don't agree within that period, the amendment doesn't happen. This setup could become a point of contention, with some arguing it's too restrictive, potentially preventing future adjustments to the Court's size even if the country's needs change down the line.