4 ms·

He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. He had an inordinate amount of power that we are very lucky he used mostly benignly. The two term only pr

He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. He had an inordinate amount of power that we are very lucky he used mostly benignly. The two term only precedent was a defacto rule that only became written because it was broken. It was enacted at the height of FDR's popularity, too.

ceejayoz 10y ago
> He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. Which failed, and could easily be attempted by a one-term president too. I'm not sure what that has to do with term limits. > It was enacted at the height of FDR's popularity, too. It was enacted by a Republican-controlled congress after FDR's death.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  I don't believe it's healthy for democracy. FDR was exceptional but a large part of why he was reelected was because of ongoing events. In any other situation he would not have. The American people after his death wisely decided it wasn't good for someone to have power for 13+ years. That turns the office into something imperial. Packing the court was an abuse of power that he was only able to attempt because he was popular, and popularity isn't always the best way to pick leaders. Other incredible presidents didn't get three terms (Roosevelt comes to find). Obama has at best been a good president. Does he really deserve 12 years? Is he more deserving of that than all other presidents but FDR? Historically, no. And without the rule, he'd get it by default as he's obviously better than Trump and incumbent advantage and all that. Without term limits we're just waiting for the bizarro Nixon in Watchmen to show up...and given time it would happen. Maybe Trump would be it.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. In his second term. So, hardly a dangerous protection re against by term limits. > He had an inordinate amount of power As the failure of the court packing scheme demonstrates, he didn't have an "inordinate amount of power" personally, he was just, on other issues, successful at convincing others with power that his preferred approaches were desirable.

ceejayoz 10y ago

> He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. Which failed, and could easily be attempted by a one-term president too. I'm not sure what that has to do with term limits. > It was enacted at the height of FDR's popularity, too. It was enacted by a Republican-controlled congress after FDR's death.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
I don't believe it's healthy for democracy. FDR was exceptional but a large part of why he was reelected was because of ongoing events. In any other situation he would not have. The American people after his death wisely decided it wasn't good for someone to have power for 13+ years. That turns the office into something imperial. Packing the court was an abuse of power that he was only able to attempt because he was popular, and popularity isn't always the best way to pick leaders. Other incredible presidents didn't get three terms (Roosevelt comes to find). Obama has at best been a good president. Does he really deserve 12 years? Is he more deserving of that than all other presidents but FDR? Historically, no. And without the rule, he'd get it by default as he's obviously better than Trump and incumbent advantage and all that. Without term limits we're just waiting for the bizarro Nixon in Watchmen to show up...and given time it would happen. Maybe Trump would be it.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> He also tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930s. In his second term. So, hardly a dangerous protection re against by term limits. > He had an inordinate amount of power As the failure of the court packing scheme demonstrates, he didn't have an "inordinate amount of power" personally, he was just, on other issues, successful at convincing others with power that his preferred approaches were desirable.