7 ms·

Yep. And there are no more "checks and balances" because POTUS stacks the SCOTUS, and POTUS and SOTUS work hand-in-glove. The last remaining hold-out is HOROTUS

Yep. And there are no more "checks and balances" because POTUS stacks the SCOTUS, and POTUS and SOTUS work hand-in-glove. The last remaining hold-out is HOROTUS, but that can flip any session. Even so, D and R are both beholden to the American aristocratic wealth class for support, legitimacy, and power, so there is effectively no difference beyond a few, token, mild progressives in D who don't hold sway over the majority of neoliberals.

ardy42 6y ago
> Yep. And there are no more "checks and balances" because POTUS stacks the SCOTUS, and POTUS and SOTUS work hand-in-glove. The last remaining hold-out is HOROTUS, but that can flip any session. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm warming up to the idea of the Democrats passing court-packing legislation for the Supreme and Appellate courts the next time they control both houses of Congress and the presidency. Especially if they can somehow establish a very strong super-majority requirement for all future judicial branch nominations that would be immune to stealth court-packing tactics like the Senate Republicans have been using. The prior institutional restraints have broken down, and balance needs to be restored and new restraints implemented if the system is going to survive.
- refurb 6y ago
  That will never happen. FDR's own party shit bricks when he tried to stack the Supreme Court. He got his pee-pee smacked hard.
  - dantheman 6y ago
    FDR won, the supreme court backed down and FDR was able to execute his programs.
    - dnautics 6y ago
      And later he committed one of the worst civil rights violations by the federal government (the bulk of the injustices against the Indians were done by the states)
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > the bulk of the injustices against the Indians were done by the states Maybe, and maybe that means that the Japanese internment was worse then anything the federal government did to the Native Americans. I mean, it's not like native Americans were forcibly relocated from their homes into federally designated lands for a handful of years like the Japanese... oh, wait...
      - monadic2 6y ago
        Seems very relevant, I’m a fan of FDR and this is absolutely necessary to talk about. the feds vs states thing seems like a distinction without meaning, tbh, the federal government certainly intended the states to deal with natives as they did, and there is absolutely no shortage of crimes done by the federal government itself (treaties broken, allies backstabbed, lands taken, literal genocide, fucking DAPL)
        dantheman 6y ago
        The federal government was supposed to only execute its enumerated powers, which could be expanded by passing amendments. Instead the federal government can do anything it wants. It's why we have the drug war, DEA, huge national debt, broken medical system.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > That will never happen. FDR's own party shit bricks when he tried to stack the Supreme Court. He got his pee-pee smacked hard. It didn't happen then, but that doesn't mean it can't happen now. For several decades, the Republicans have played political hardball to pack the courts in their own way [1]; I doubt that was a factor nearly a century ago. [1] bitter obstructionism to maintain vacancies until they have the power to fill them with their own picks, selected primarily for ideological reliability.
    - creaghpatr 6y ago
      You are literally changing the definition to fit your editorializing, that's about as radical as it gets.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > You are literally changing the definition to fit your editorializing, that's about as radical as it gets. Eh, if the definition of "court packing" is so narrow that it only covers things nearly exactly like FDR's proposal, then I don't consider it a very useful term. If it makes you more comfortable, feel free to replace "court packing" in my comment with a term that's general enough to encompass FDR's proposal and the Republicans' recent tactics.
  - astronautjones 6y ago
    we're about to enter a very different phase imo
  - monadic2 6y ago
    FDR got things done in spite of, not because of, his party. democrats have never been particularly good at passing progressive legislation without someone in the drivers seat.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  That’s kind of what most pragmatic leftist fundamentally want. Instead of getting wrapped up in melodramatic leftist emotional narratives, a lot of us really just want to push the left wing into the courts and be done with the national political mess.
- julianlam 6y ago
  Excuse my pessimism, but this won't work for the simple reason that if this were introduced, Republicans would cry foul, say it's unfair, and the Democrats would agree to back down because it's not nice to play on an unlevel playing field. They will conveniently forget that were the tables turned, Republicans would not do the same.
  - dantheman 6y ago
    You mean like how FDR threatened to do that during the new deal, and then the court backed down and let all sorts of unconstitutional stuff through? When we ended a government of enumerated powers and everything could be done at the federal level without an amendment - great things like the drug war.
    - bduerst 6y ago
      FDR packed the court with his own judges when others had retired during his term. That's how he got the New Deal through, not on threats or cowing.
  - 8ytecoder 6y ago
    Democrats removed super majority requirement for Supreme Court nominations. I believe a super majority would have acted as a check against a stacked court. There would be compromises and more moderate justices would have been considered. [1] People take less notice of transgressions when their party is in power. As much as we might like to think there’s universal recognition of the current administration’s misuse of power there’s a lot of people who support it - “to get things done”. People just hate it when it’s not the things they want. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-lim...
    - soco 6y ago
      Wouldn't that super-majority for the court be a risk, as a minority could easily block its workings (not influence, just block)?
monadic2 6y ago
> And there are no more "checks and balances" because POTUS stacks the SCOTUS, and POTUS and SOTUS work hand-in-glove. The last remaining hold-out is HOROTUS, but that can flip any session. Some time in the past, certainly at FDR’s time, dems were confident about stacking the court. What changed to defang them? The dem’s actions while Merrick Garland was denied hearings infuriate me until today: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obst...
- benignslime 6y ago
  What did you expect them to do? Nearly every time Obama spoke publicly about GOP obstruction he was laughed at. You gonna just blame Democrats every time the GOP takes another step towards destroying democracy in the USA?

ardy42 6y ago

> Yep. And there are no more "checks and balances" because POTUS stacks the SCOTUS, and POTUS and SOTUS work hand-in-glove. The last remaining hold-out is HOROTUS, but that can flip any session. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm warming up to the idea of the Democrats passing court-packing legislation for the Supreme and Appellate courts the next time they control both houses of Congress and the presidency. Especially if they can somehow establish a very strong super-majority requirement for all future judicial branch nominations that would be immune to stealth court-packing tactics like the Senate Republicans have been using. The prior institutional restraints have broken down, and balance needs to be restored and new restraints implemented if the system is going to survive.

refurb 6y ago
That will never happen. FDR's own party shit bricks when he tried to stack the Supreme Court. He got his pee-pee smacked hard.
- dantheman 6y ago
  FDR won, the supreme court backed down and FDR was able to execute his programs.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    And later he committed one of the worst civil rights violations by the federal government (the bulk of the injustices against the Indians were done by the states)
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > the bulk of the injustices against the Indians were done by the states Maybe, and maybe that means that the Japanese internment was worse then anything the federal government did to the Native Americans. I mean, it's not like native Americans were forcibly relocated from their homes into federally designated lands for a handful of years like the Japanese... oh, wait...
    - monadic2 6y ago
      Seems very relevant, I’m a fan of FDR and this is absolutely necessary to talk about. the feds vs states thing seems like a distinction without meaning, tbh, the federal government certainly intended the states to deal with natives as they did, and there is absolutely no shortage of crimes done by the federal government itself (treaties broken, allies backstabbed, lands taken, literal genocide, fucking DAPL)
      - dantheman 6y ago
        The federal government was supposed to only execute its enumerated powers, which could be expanded by passing amendments. Instead the federal government can do anything it wants. It's why we have the drug war, DEA, huge national debt, broken medical system.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > That will never happen. FDR's own party shit bricks when he tried to stack the Supreme Court. He got his pee-pee smacked hard. It didn't happen then, but that doesn't mean it can't happen now. For several decades, the Republicans have played political hardball to pack the courts in their own way [1]; I doubt that was a factor nearly a century ago. [1] bitter obstructionism to maintain vacancies until they have the power to fill them with their own picks, selected primarily for ideological reliability.
  - creaghpatr 6y ago
    You are literally changing the definition to fit your editorializing, that's about as radical as it gets.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > You are literally changing the definition to fit your editorializing, that's about as radical as it gets. Eh, if the definition of "court packing" is so narrow that it only covers things nearly exactly like FDR's proposal, then I don't consider it a very useful term. If it makes you more comfortable, feel free to replace "court packing" in my comment with a term that's general enough to encompass FDR's proposal and the Republicans' recent tactics.
- astronautjones 6y ago
  we're about to enter a very different phase imo
- monadic2 6y ago
  FDR got things done in spite of, not because of, his party. democrats have never been particularly good at passing progressive legislation without someone in the drivers seat.
runawaybottle 6y ago
That’s kind of what most pragmatic leftist fundamentally want. Instead of getting wrapped up in melodramatic leftist emotional narratives, a lot of us really just want to push the left wing into the courts and be done with the national political mess.
julianlam 6y ago
Excuse my pessimism, but this won't work for the simple reason that if this were introduced, Republicans would cry foul, say it's unfair, and the Democrats would agree to back down because it's not nice to play on an unlevel playing field. They will conveniently forget that were the tables turned, Republicans would not do the same.
- dantheman 6y ago
  You mean like how FDR threatened to do that during the new deal, and then the court backed down and let all sorts of unconstitutional stuff through? When we ended a government of enumerated powers and everything could be done at the federal level without an amendment - great things like the drug war.
  - bduerst 6y ago
    FDR packed the court with his own judges when others had retired during his term. That's how he got the New Deal through, not on threats or cowing.
- 8ytecoder 6y ago
  Democrats removed super majority requirement for Supreme Court nominations. I believe a super majority would have acted as a check against a stacked court. There would be compromises and more moderate justices would have been considered. [1] People take less notice of transgressions when their party is in power. As much as we might like to think there’s universal recognition of the current administration’s misuse of power there’s a lot of people who support it - “to get things done”. People just hate it when it’s not the things they want. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-lim...
  - soco 6y ago
    Wouldn't that super-majority for the court be a risk, as a minority could easily block its workings (not influence, just block)?

monadic2 6y ago

> And there are no more "checks and balances" because POTUS stacks the SCOTUS, and POTUS and SOTUS work hand-in-glove. The last remaining hold-out is HOROTUS, but that can flip any session. Some time in the past, certainly at FDR’s time, dems were confident about stacking the court. What changed to defang them? The dem’s actions while Merrick Garland was denied hearings infuriate me until today: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obst...

benignslime 6y ago
What did you expect them to do? Nearly every time Obama spoke publicly about GOP obstruction he was laughed at. You gonna just blame Democrats every time the GOP takes another step towards destroying democracy in the USA?