The Katy (Texas) News
Sen. Cruz: We Must Preserve Our Independent Judiciary
Introduces the ‘Keep Nine’ constitutional amendment and legislation to prevent Court packing
Feb 26, 2021
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today introduced two proposals to maintain the number of justices on the Supreme Court, preserve the integrity and independence of the Court, and protect Americans’ constitutional liberties. Sen. Cruz previously introduced these proposals in October of 2020.
The first proposal, a constitutional amendment known as the “Keep Nine” amendment, would prevent the expansion or contraction of the Supreme Court. Cosponsors of the “Keep Nine” amendment include Sens. John Boozman (R- Ark.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Chuck Grassley (R- Iowa). U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) introduced the companion bill in the House of Representatives.
The second proposal is legislation that would stop Democrats from unilaterally passing any Court-packing legislation in the United States Senate. Cosponsors of this legislation include Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Rick Scott (R-Fla.).
Upon introducing these proposals, Sen. Cruz said:
“For the sake of our liberties and the future of our country, we must preserve the independence of our judiciary. As my Democrat colleagues brazenly discuss expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, this legislation and constitutional amendment ensures we prevent either party from wielding the Supreme Court as a political tool for their own advantage. I urge my colleagues to defend the fundamental liberties of their constituents—their religious liberty, freedom of speech, and Second Amendment rights—and swiftly take up and pass these proposals to prevent Court packing.”
Rep. Johnson added:
“Since 1869, our Supreme Court has had nine Justices. We are living in a hyper-partisan world and Democrat leaders have already called for additional seats on the court. The control of the Senate hangs in the balance and if Democrats are successful in Georgia, we could very well see efforts to pack the Supreme Court. We must preserve the impartiality of the Supreme Court and setting the court at nine will do just that. My constitutional amendment is more necessary than ever.”
Ahead of the presidential election in 2020, Democrats desperately attempted to redefine Court packing in order to hide their true objective: adding seats to the Supreme Court in a radical and partisan attempt to drive the Court to the left.
During President Biden’s presidential campaign, he faced extreme calls to expand the Court from the media and prominent Democrat politicians alike. Sen. Ed Markey tweeted just hours after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”
In 2019, as a senator, Vice President Kamala Harris voiced her openness to expanding the Supreme Court saying, “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court […] We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono also signaled support for packing the Supreme Court, calling Court packing “long-overdue court reform.”
And Sen. Elizabeth Warren voiced her support for expanding the Court while perfectly underlining the need for Sen. Cruz’s legislation saying, “I’m open. […] Actually, I mean, we could. […] Look, there are a lot of different ways to do it. The number of people on the Supreme Court is not constitutionally constricted.”