In Ohio, Congressman Jim Jordan, who wears many hats including Judiciary Committee Chairman, has found himself in the spotlight again, this time discussing voting regulations. The topic of conversation? Photo IDs. It seems that in the age of smartphones and selfies, having to show identification to vote has become a sticky issue. Jordan firmly believes that asking voters to prove their identity is a no-brainer. After all, he argues, it’s about protecting democracy, or at least what he thinks it should be.

Jordan points to what he calls “the craziness” of the left. According to him, their stance against requiring photo IDs is just one of many odd positions they take. He doesn’t hesitate to list some of these positions, such as defunding key institutions like ICE and the police, or the idea of sanctuary cities. Jordan connects the dots between these controversial policies and what he sees as a lack of common sense. For him, the requirement for a photo ID is as fundamental as it gets. In his view, it’s all about ensuring the integrity of elections, which, let’s face it, sounds like a pretty solid argument.

Then, the conversation takes an intriguing turn. Jordan expresses his concern over what he perceives as a Democratic push to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices. According to him, the magical number of four is no accident – it would give the left an advantageous majority. It’s a classic strategy, he insists, designed to lock in liberal policies and decisions for years to come. The implication here is that such maneuvers show a disregard for the principles that underpin American democracy. Rather than change the rules mid-game, he advocates for the traditional route: win elections to get the right justices appointed.

The discussion then swings to the historical context of the Supreme Court. Jordan points out that the number of justices has varied over the years, from as few as one to as many as ten. Currently, the court has settled into the well-known number of nine since 1869. His point is that solidifying this number into law would require a constitutional amendment, which isn’t a walk in the park. It seems he is ready to challenge his colleagues in Congress to confront this issue. Should the idea be put to a vote, he’s eager to see how Democrats respond.

But what happens if the left does vote to increase the number of justices? Jordan adds a humorous twist by jokingly suggesting that if they go for four, then why not 10, 20, or even 1,000 justices? It’s a cheeky poke at the slippery slope argument — a reminder that if the rules can change at will, it could lead to a judicial circus. After all, the Supreme Court is supposed to be a separate and equal branch of government, not just another part of the political theater.

In a world filled with political drama, it’s refreshing to see a fiery passion for the Constitution. Jordan’s commitment to maintaining integrity in elections and the structure of the judiciary is evident, and he insists that he and his fellow conservatives will fight to protect these principles. As this voting ID debate continues, one thing is clear: Jordan is ready to take the stage and advocate for what he believes is the right path for America’s democracy.