4 ms·

Barring court packing.

refurb 4y ago
FDR got his pee-pee wacked by his own party for trying to pack the Supreme Court back in the 1930's. It's a non-starter.
- int_19h 4y ago
  It's not the 1930s. It's a very different country with different politics.
- acdha 4y ago
  That’s far from a given. The current court’s willingness to just ignore long-standing precedent to take away major rights, the stolen seat, and Thomas’ massive conflicts of interest (not just Ginny organizing the insurrection but also receiving money from groups going before the court) have permanently damaged faith in an institution which relies on authority granted to it on the trust that it not do things like that (note how much more limited the court’s direct constitutional authority is). I think it’s quite plausible that there’d be significant public support for a reform package: pin the number of justices to the number of lower courts (we have 9 because that’s how many there were the last time that changed), add term limits for new justices, and adopting the ethics rules which other federal judges are required to follow.
  - refurb 4y ago
    No, no, no. You’re telling me the situation is more contentious than the 30’s when FDR was trying to pass his New Deal during the greatest economic collapse the US has ever known? No. Your reply and your hyperbole suggest you don’t know much about the court’s history.
    - acdha 4y ago
      I find it interesting that you’re talking about hyperbole but offering only emotional rhetoric. If you want to do better, note that I was talking about the legitimacy of the court itself, which is critical to an institution with a great deal of inferred power which is not explicitly spelled out. The FDR-era court did not have a justice whose legitimacy was dubious. Similarly, you could look at the various New Deal rulings for examples which completely broke with long-standing precedent or relied on cherry-picked history if you want to argue that those rulings were not unusual.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Not legitimate? It was seen as blocking some of the most progressive policies helping the desperately poor during the Great Depression. If it was legitimate why would you need to stack the court. A legitimate court’s decisions would be accepted, not changed by adding judges. And the reason why the idea to stack was defeated was because it was viewed as a run around judicial independence (e.g. making it less legitimate).
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        acdha 4y ago
        Again, please note what we’re talking about: legitimacy of the court itself. New Deal proponents didn’t like those rulings but there was no question that any of the judges hadn’t been properly appointed, nor was there a huge break with past precedent on the same issue. We’re living in a time where a majority of the court are acting in blatantly politicized ways, interfering on behalf of their party to prevent fair elections and flipping alleged legal theories whenever necessary to produce their desired outcome. That is incredibly risky for an institution which has considerable power on the grounds that it not play games like that.
        refurb 4y ago
        there was no question that any of the judges hadn’t been properly appointed The same can be said today. Supreme Court appointments have always been political. Hell being "Borked" got its name from political games during Reagan. Just because you don't think the process was "proper" doesn't change the fact they were all confirmed by the senate, as per the "proper" process. Funny how many people complain about the politics of Supreme Court nominees only when it works against their own political views.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      >the greatest economic collapse the US has ever known? Jpow: Hold my beer.

FDR got his pee-pee wacked by his own party for trying to pack the Supreme Court back in the 1930's. It's a non-starter.

int_19h 4y ago
It's not the 1930s. It's a very different country with different politics.
acdha 4y ago
That’s far from a given. The current court’s willingness to just ignore long-standing precedent to take away major rights, the stolen seat, and Thomas’ massive conflicts of interest (not just Ginny organizing the insurrection but also receiving money from groups going before the court) have permanently damaged faith in an institution which relies on authority granted to it on the trust that it not do things like that (note how much more limited the court’s direct constitutional authority is). I think it’s quite plausible that there’d be significant public support for a reform package: pin the number of justices to the number of lower courts (we have 9 because that’s how many there were the last time that changed), add term limits for new justices, and adopting the ethics rules which other federal judges are required to follow.
- refurb 4y ago
  No, no, no. You’re telling me the situation is more contentious than the 30’s when FDR was trying to pass his New Deal during the greatest economic collapse the US has ever known? No. Your reply and your hyperbole suggest you don’t know much about the court’s history.
  - acdha 4y ago
    I find it interesting that you’re talking about hyperbole but offering only emotional rhetoric. If you want to do better, note that I was talking about the legitimacy of the court itself, which is critical to an institution with a great deal of inferred power which is not explicitly spelled out. The FDR-era court did not have a justice whose legitimacy was dubious. Similarly, you could look at the various New Deal rulings for examples which completely broke with long-standing precedent or relied on cherry-picked history if you want to argue that those rulings were not unusual.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Not legitimate? It was seen as blocking some of the most progressive policies helping the desperately poor during the Great Depression. If it was legitimate why would you need to stack the court. A legitimate court’s decisions would be accepted, not changed by adding judges. And the reason why the idea to stack was defeated was because it was viewed as a run around judicial independence (e.g. making it less legitimate).
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - acdha 4y ago
        Again, please note what we’re talking about: legitimacy of the court itself. New Deal proponents didn’t like those rulings but there was no question that any of the judges hadn’t been properly appointed, nor was there a huge break with past precedent on the same issue. We’re living in a time where a majority of the court are acting in blatantly politicized ways, interfering on behalf of their party to prevent fair elections and flipping alleged legal theories whenever necessary to produce their desired outcome. That is incredibly risky for an institution which has considerable power on the grounds that it not play games like that.
        refurb 4y ago
        there was no question that any of the judges hadn’t been properly appointed The same can be said today. Supreme Court appointments have always been political. Hell being "Borked" got its name from political games during Reagan. Just because you don't think the process was "proper" doesn't change the fact they were all confirmed by the senate, as per the "proper" process. Funny how many people complain about the politics of Supreme Court nominees only when it works against their own political views.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    >the greatest economic collapse the US has ever known? Jpow: Hold my beer.