This bill proposes a constitutional amendment to permanently set the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, requiring ratification by three-fourths of the states within seven years.
Dusty Johnson
Representative
SD
This bill proposes a constitutional amendment to fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. For this amendment to be valid, three-fourths of the state legislatures must ratify it within seven years of its submission.
This proposed constitutional amendment aims to cement the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. To become effective, it needs a thumbs-up from three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years of its submission for ratification.
Keeping Things Constant
The core proposal is straightforward: lock in the Supreme Court at nine justices. This isn't about changing who sits on the bench, but rather about setting a fixed number to avoid future expansions or reductions. The immediate effect? The number stays put. The long-term game? That depends on how states vote and the political winds blowing at the time of ratification.
Real-World Ripple Effects
So, what does this mean for the average Joe or Jane? Imagine a small business owner, Sarah, who's trying to navigate regulations that often end up in Supreme Court battles. A fixed court size could mean more predictability in how laws are interpreted, making it slightly easier for her to plan for the future. Or consider a construction worker, Mike, whose union’s collective bargaining agreements are subject to legal challenges. A stable court might reduce the likelihood of dramatic shifts in labor law, providing a bit more job security. But, if the country's needs change significantly—more people, more complex laws—a fixed number might become a tight squeeze, potentially slowing down how quickly cases can be heard.
The Seven-Year Itch and Other Hurdles
Getting three-fourths of the states to agree on anything within seven years is a tall order. It's like trying to get everyone in a large, diverse family to agree on the same vacation spot – possible, but potentially fraught with delays and disagreements. This time limit ensures the amendment doesn’t hang around forever, but it also puts pressure on getting it done quickly. If it fails, things stay as they are, and the debate could resurface later. Successfully implemented, this amendment will integrate with the foundational rules of the U.S. Constitution, specifically impacting Article III which established the judiciary, but now with a defined number for the highest court.