Posted on 03/02/2010 3:42:43 AM PST by TornadoAlley3
This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court.
The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. It shrank to five in 1801. It expanded to seven in 1807. It grew to nine in 1837 and 10 in 1863. It fell back to seven in 1866. It returned to nine in 1869 and has remained at that number since.
Political issues accounted for the changes. The Federalists reduced the number to five, hoping to deprive Thomas Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democrats repealed that measure, raising the number to seven. It went to nine in 1837 to give Andrew Jackson two more seats. Civil War issues led to more fluctuations before the court settled at nine under President Ulysses Grant.
So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.
The court's recent controversial decision equating corporations with individuals turned an already overly money-influenced campaign system into a veritable free-for-all of propaganda for corporate and vested interests. It was met with criticism by most legal scholars, praised only by corporate mouthpieces.
Even Barack "Can't We All Get Along?" Obama criticized the decision in his State of the Union speech. A lot of good that will do. The court has four hard-liners who are against what Obama strives for, and a so-called swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, who votes with them in the big cases.
As the court stands, it is reminiscent of the stonewall President Franklin Roosevelt faced in opposition to his New Deal legislation. Four entrenched reactionary justices, known as the "Four Horsemen," were not only anti-New Deal, but some demonstrated a personal dislike for FDR.
Justice James McReynolds reportedly stated in response to rumors that he would step down, "I'll never retire as long as that crippled son of a bitch is still in the White House."
In response, Roosevelt sought to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 and refused retirement, with a maximum size of 15 justices. The phrase "packing the court" became the pejorative that turned the public against FDR's plan.
The actual plan wasn't pushed, however, because of changes on the court. Justice Owen Roberts - seemingly intimidated by popular approval of the New Deal - voted with liberals in a decision supporting Washington state's minimum-wage law. Roberts' change of heart was called "the switch in time that saved nine."
The ideological balance of the court was changed for good with the retirement of another Horseman, Willis Van Devanter, and the confirmation of liberal Hugo Black in August 1937.
Had Roosevelt needed his court-packing plan, he would have had to do a better job of winning over the public. Secrecy undermined the proposal, including the president's failure to bring Democratic leaders into his confidence before a news conference announcing the plan. Kentucky Sen. Alben Barkley complained that Roosevelt was a "poor quarterback" on the court plan.
That's an easy enough mistake for Obama to avoid. He can easily be a quarterback for change on a court that will give the president continued grief as he tries to implement his agenda.
Obama can give himself a fighting chance by changing the rules of the game, just as they were changed for other presidents in the 1800s. He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.
It would be a tumultuous fight, but it would be for a change we could believe in.
Well, that at least is true.
This smacks of a “Losers Limp”. You just can’t get your moronic points across your way, so you change the rules. This is somethings kids do on the playground.
expand = “pack”!
Rather than pack the court with enough yes-men to get what he wants, why not just dissolve the Supreme Court and declare himself the sole judge?
Then replace the Legislative branch as well!
Many of us saw this coming, especially if Dems use reconciliation to pass healthcare, they cannot take the chance it will be shot down by the SCOTUS.
Packing the court makes sense, especially if they believe Republicans will only have a slim majority in both houses after November......giving Obama a liberal court for the remainder of his first term.
Sounds like a “progressive.”
“for the remainder of his first term”
should be
“for the remainder of his term.”
The court packing scheme didn't work out well for FDR.
The comments on FR are moderate compared to the comments at Philly.com
Sounds like an unrepentant facist to me.
I have any number of rude suggestions for him, should I ever have the occasion to be able to deliver them in person.
If Stan Isaacs, BO’s balloon floating idjit, thinks socialized health care is a fight, wait until this bullcrap hits the fan.
This is just more evidence BO’s proposals cannot pass constitutional muster.
I’m serious, let’s chip in and send the author of this article to SeaWorld. Orca show anyone?
FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court with additional Liberal/Progressive Judges, because the Supreme Court had threatened to overturn “Social Security” as UnConstitutional.
The Supreme Court Caved to FDR, and eventually ruled that Social Security was Constitutional.
Because it worked so well when FDR tried it...
Obama would surely support this idea. To be fair, we need a representative of every conceivable minority on the court. We need an authentic black (Justice Thomas doesn’t make the grade), a Mulsim, a gay male, a Lesbian female (we may already have that), a he-she, a she-he, a native American (standard grade), a native American (Aleut grade), an illegal immigrant, a Wiccan, a Hollywood celebrity, a Down’s Syndrome person (no wait, they all need to be terminated), and so on ad nauseum. Absolutely no more white males can be tolerated. </sarc>
Well, if you read the article you would know the author's reasoning why it failed for FDR.
But why read the article when you can just react to a headline?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.