In a bold political move, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced on Tuesday plans to introduce a constitutional amendment intended to solidify the U.S. Supreme Court’s composition at nine justices permanently.

This announcement comes just after the House passed a short-term funding bill aimed at preventing a government shutdown, showcasing Johnson’s push for action on multiple fronts.

“We will keep the nine,” Johnson told reporters, emphasizing the urgency of preventing what he claimed could be attempts by Democrats to “pack” the court with additional justices.

The speaker claimed that Democrats and their more progressive wing are eyeing changes to court size as part of an agenda he characterizes as radical.

“We are going to bring a constitutional amendment,” Johnson declared, outlining his intention to ensure that no future Congress can alter the number of justices serving on the nation’s highest court.

In his remarks, Johnson accused certain factions within the Democratic Party of secretly plotting to reshape the court structure.

“One of their objectives… is they want to pack the U.S. Supreme Court,” Johnson stated, reinforcing his commitment to making sure this does not happen.

The Republican leader also indicated that the proposed amendment will be brought to the floor under “suspension of the rules,” necessitating a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress for passage.

Johnson’s decision arrives amid ongoing tensions within the party, particularly regarding the Democratic Socialists of America, which Johnson labeled as “communist socialists” attempting to push the court toward a more progressive stance.

In an apparent challenge to Democrats, Johnson suggested that some moderate members of the party may not support the left’s ambitions.

“There’s a couple of Democrats here in the House who have suggested that they’re not on board with the Democratic Socialists of America – just a few,” Johnson noted, indicating that the coming vote could expose party divisions.

This proposed amendment has already ignited discussions about judicial independence and the implications of court-packing.

Legal experts are weighing in, cautioning that amendments to the Constitution require significant political consensus and are often difficult to achieve.

Historically, attempts to modify the structure of the Supreme Court have been met with resistance; FDR’s court expansion plan in the 1930s remains a point of contention.

As this debate unfolds, the implications for both parties could be profound in shaping future judicial appointments and legislative agendas.

With the votes anticipated shortly, Johnson urged Democrats to reveal their true positions on judicial matters, urging them to “put their money where their mouth is.”

This confrontation sets the stage for a crucial moment in American politics, where the balance of power in the judiciary is being challenged.

As the vote approaches, all eyes will be on the House to see if Johnson can rally enough support within his party and possibly from moderates across the aisle.

Ultimately, this move underscores the ongoing ideological battles influencing U.S. governance and the preservation of judicial integrity.

Should the amendment pass, it would mark a significant victory for Republicans, solidifying their stance against what they deem radical attempts to alter the judiciary’s makeup.