American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

What if democrats resort to court packing and appoint 6 ultra liberal judges the next time they have a majority?

Something FDR attempted, although I can’t recall why he failed...

Edit:

Roosevelt got no Supreme Court appointments in his first term. In the 1936 election, he won more than 60% of the vote and carried the electoral college 523-8 — a landslide by any measure. The Democrats held a stunning 74 seats in the Senate to the Republicans’ 17, and ruled the House of Representatives by a margin of 334-88.

Thwarted by the Supreme Court, and frustrated by the thwarting, Roosevelt in 1937 proposed legislation that would have added a new justice for each one over the age of 70. Six justices were over 70, so the law would have let Roosevelt transform the court immediately.

The Republicans had no chance of stopping the court-packing plan. Yet remarkably, many Democrats objected, suggesting that Roosevelt was trying to change the balance of power and make himself a dictator. With Adolf Hitler having come to power in Germany, the charge resonated.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

...but this whole Trump timeline is just bizarre. Future presidents (both parties) will have some big scandal and we will all go, "that was just a Monday for Trump". NOT a good precedent for the future btw.

 As I said,  I'm observing from far away,  but near universal consensus here was  that W Bush was an embarrassment, war criminal,  corrupt,  out of his depth, and so on,  and now the good sane times of his presidency are remembered fondly.

I would take Bush over Trump in a heartbeat. Mind I would take a random American citizen and mind some of them voted for him.

FYI RBG was asked about court packing at some point during Obama administration I believe and she was very against as I would hope everyone would be...... (in before Trump adds more judges).

[AdrienIer]

AFAIK FDR's court packing idea, even though it failed, put enough pressure on the justices that they stopped being too contrarian. So he achieved his goals in a way.

[Gustaran]

What if democrats resort to court packing and appoint 6 ultra liberal judges the next time they have a majority?

Something FDR attempted, although I can’t recall why he failed...

Roosevelt didn't fail at all, the initial reason for his threat was the Supreme Court's blockade of his New Deal legislation. After his court packing threat that ended quickly.

It's known as "The switch in time that saved nine".

[mackoti]

Do you really understand the problem here? Traditionally, the supreme court justice had to be confirmed by a larger majority of the senate (I think 60 seats?).

Who changed the rules? From what I know were the dems. 
And more the problem is not the nammig but the one which is nammed , exactly as i tought.
And I am courious in which way garland is a moderate as the right is saying he is same left leanning like Kagan for example and the left is saying he is centrist.

Roosevelt didn't fail at all, the initial reason for his threat was the Supreme Court's blockade of his New Deal legislation. After his court packing threat that ended quickly.

It's known as "The switch in time that saved nine".

So was alright for a president to threten Scotus to get his way? Seeing you agree with him I can bet he was a democrat president ....

[darrelljs]

Who changed the rules? From what I know were the dems.

No it was Mitch in 2017. You may being thinking of when Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” for cabinet appointees and federal judges in 2013, when Mitch famously said “You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think”. Not that Harry had much choice given the Republicans were filibustering Obama’s nominations en masse.

Darrell

[mackoti]

Who changed the rules? From what I know were the dems.

No it was Mitch in 2017.  You may being thinking of when Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” for cabinet appointees and federal judges in 2013, when Mitch famously said “You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think”.  Not that Harry had much choice given the Republicans were filibustering Obama’s nominations en masse.

Darrell

TY. Very strange , so he used a simple majority to change a thing which was good.Well as I see american politics now no person will get 2/3 of the votes, even Maria tereza will not qualify, from what i know there are 2-3 rep sennators which are ready to discuss with dems  and from dems part i know just one.  So getting 60  votes will be clearly immposible...

[Gustaran]

So was alright for a president to threten Scotus to get his way? Seeing you agree with him I can bet he was a democrat president ....

Do you actually understand what the conflict was about? Thanks to Roosevelt there are numerous worker protections in the US today which are taken for granted, for example minimum wage laws. So of course I agree with him, regardless of party affiliation. The more important point is that in my opinion the court overstepped his constitutional role and Roosevelt reigned the judges in.

And why would I care about which party Roosevelt was in anyway? I think Trump is an incompetent egomaniac for a number of reasons, but not because he is a Republican. Let's not forget that until 2009, Trump was affiliated with the Democratic party.

[mackoti]

So was alright for a president to threten Scotus to get his way? Seeing you agree with him I can bet he was a democrat president ....

Do you actually understand what the conflict was about? Thanks to Roosevelt there are numerous worker protections in the US today which are taken for granted, for example minimum wage laws. So of course I agree with him, regardless of party affiliation. The more important point is that in my opinion the court overstepped his constitutional role and Roosevelt reigned the judges in.

And why would I care about which party Roosevelt was in anyway? I think Trump is an incompetent egomaniac for a number of reasons, but not because he is a Republican. Let's not forget that until 2009, Trump was affiliated with the Democratic party.

I was wondering who can temper the Scotus? From outside off  SUA looks like the scotus is mighty powerfull, even more then a president, and no one can vote them out, which you can with the president.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

So was alright for a president to threten Scotus to get his way? Seeing you agree with him I can bet he was a democrat president ....

Do you actually understand what the conflict was about? Thanks to Roosevelt there are numerous worker protections in the US today which are taken for granted, for example minimum wage laws. So of course I agree with him, regardless of party affiliation. The more important point is that in my opinion the court overstepped his constitutional role and Roosevelt reigned the judges in.

And why would I care about which party Roosevelt was in anyway? I think Trump is an incompetent egomaniac for a number of reasons, but not because he is a Republican. Let's not forget that until 2009, Trump was affiliated with the Democratic party.

I was wondering who can temper the Scotus? From outside off  SUA looks like the scotus is mighty powerfull, even more then a president, and no one can vote them out, which you can with the president.

Nothing, and the SCOTUS can effectively re-interpret the constitution to grant itself more powers (which it did 200 years ago, leading to it being able to strike down laws without there even being a case), which can only be challenged by constitutional amendment, which required 3/4 of the states and 2/3 vote in both houses on congress.