Stacking the Court (Dems floating idea to increase size of Supreme Court if they win next election!)

New York Times ^ | 07/26/2007 | Jean Edward Smith

[milwguy]

A preview of things to come if the Rats win the next election. Of course the author of this article doesn't think liberal Supreme Court decisions were 'manifestly ideological', i.e Roe V Wade. I love how liberals will do anything to grab power, legislate through the courts what they could never get passed into law, and thumb their noses at any of us who dare to disagree with them.

[randomhero97]

I would be more worried of submitting our sovereignty to an international court if the worse comes to pass.

[napscoordinator]

I don’t care how many Supreme Court Justices we have, the Democrats will not have the say in every justice picked. In the last forty or so years we have had about the same number of Democratic and Republican Presidents (at least in years) so if they think they can chose 100 percent of the justices, they are sadly mistaken. We are a divided country which is one of the reason that we have a divided Court.

[jeddavis]

The conclusion I come to is that the United States is no longer a viable country, and needs to be split up. Trying to maintain the status quo much longer is going to lead to a civil war.

[joebuck]

Have any Dem legislators actually come out in support of this (as implied in the title to the thread) or is it just the inane ramblings of some commie NYT writer?

[TonyInOhio]

FDR, at the height of his popularity, couldn't get an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress to agree to his "court-packing" scheme. Hillary and her posse will have no political capital to attempt the same.

This is another liberal pipe dream.

[enough_idiocy]

Shocking. If you can’t win by the rules, change them. From Gore’s recounts, to their historical roots in FDR’s court games, these animals never change.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

FDR (nearest thing to a dictator we ever had, except perhaps Lincoln) tried that, and failed.

[Badeye]

If FDR couldn’t do this, todays Democrats don’t stand a chance.

[Bitsy]

If FDR couldn’t do this, todays Democrats don’t stand a chance.

We have to make sure this doesn’t happen. Keep the powder dry!

[Bitsy]

If FDR couldn’t do this, todays Democrats don’t stand a chance.

We have to make sure this doesn’t happen. Keep the powder dry!

[Phlap]

... election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective.

If you need a reason to vote in '08, you have one.

[Mr. Brightside]

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective.

Opposition to partial-birth abortion is a popular value that the new court has supported. But it seems that the Democrats were the ones thumbing their nose.

[Disambiguator]

The conclusion I come to is that the United States is no longer a viable country, and needs to be split up. Trying to maintain the status quo much longer is going to lead to a civil war.

The problem is that all the liberals are moving to conservative areas and ruining them!

We need a fence...around California!

[Badeye]

Yep.

Personally, I’d rather keep the court the same size, but make it one twenty year term, not a lifetime appointment.

We forget when the Founders came up with that idea the life expectancy rate was a couple of decades short of what it is today.

And Thurgood Marshall’s muttering about soap opera’s compelling nature serves as a warning....just my opinion.

[Logophile]

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective.

The writer's arrogance shines through: He seems to think he gets to say what are "popular values."

[ZULU]

What’s good for the Rats should be good for the Repubs.

We could wind up with 100 Justices.

The Dems are outrageous and highly innovative. They can think outside the box about new ways to upset the Republican applecart.

Unfortunately, the Repubs seem all too often like dumb deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming tractor trailer because they can’t think outside the box.

[Inwoodian]

Wasn’t Chase’ first name Salmon, not Samuel? And, by the way, please point me to the law books where emanations and penumbras are discussed prior to Douglas.

[Steve_Seattle]

What specifically does the NYT have in mind when they accuse the Court of “mingling law and politics”?

[Steve_Seattle]

"The framers of the Constitution did not envisage the Supreme Court as arbiter of all national issues."

True, but since when have liberals not wanted the courts to impose their political agenda on every conceivable issue? You can certainly argue from a CONSERVATIVE viewpoint that the federal courts should stay out of local school matters, or abortion, or marriage law, but since when have libs demanded such a thing?