Monumental Changes in SCOTUS - 4 Bush Appointments?

[Bluegrass Federalist]

This being the first time since FDR that the GOP has controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, it occured to me that we are overlooking another possibility. Without referring to my copy of the Constitution, memory serves that Bush could possibly, albeit with difficulty, increase the number of Justices sitting on the Court. SCOTUS could be increased to 11, justices, and Bush could immediately appoint2 to open seats. Then retirees seats could be filled. That would reverse the FDR court-packing, and give conservatives a solid majority on the SC for decades.

It is hard to even imagine what America would look like if the New Deal was rolled back. Reverse the commerce clause interpretations of the FDR court, and 70% of the federal government would disappear! Can you think of other things?

Yes, cynics, I know the GOP won't have the guts, and I know about the filibuster, but this is an option that is open, and a good dream to have.

[Young Rhino]

In a conservative move, why not reduce the size of the court to five, and dump the lefties in the process? If increasing the size of the court would be considered packing, would decreasing be unpacking?

[KantianBurke]

this is a joke post right?

[Arkinsaw]

You better pack it with 20 year olds because they would have to last a long, long, time till Republicans got control of anything again.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

We wouldn't need it for a long, long time. America was fundamentally changed when FDR threatened this and got the SC to go along with the New Deal. NOthing we could ever do, short of repealing the Income Tax Amendment, could further our pursuit of conservtaive principles.

And no, this is not a joke post. I believe I admitted the unlikelihood of this happening, and that this was a "what if" post. No need to be belittling.

[jocon307]

"You better pack it with 20 year olds because they would have to last a long, long, time till Republicans got control of anything again."

LOL, I like the way you said this. It won't help us to act like them. And anyway, wasn't FDR thwarted in his attempt to "pack the court"? I'm not sure, because the kid hasn't got up to that part of American History yet; but I expect to find out soon.

[BenLurkin]

The Supreme Court's cynical abuse of the Commerce Clause has warped the Constitution from a limiting document to an enabling document. Along the way we citizens have been robbed of much our liberty.

[End The Hypocrisy]

In the USA, less than 1% of cases are granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In some countries, though, the national Supreme Court addresses all incoming cases. A neighborly example that comes to mind is that of our #2 trading partner of Mexico, which has dozens of Supreme Court Justices if I remember correcty. The SCOTUS is seemingly in need of reform.

[HitmanLV]

Nah, no worries. Let 2 retire over the next 2 years and we get 2 appointments. Hang on to everything (Prez, House & Senate) in 2004 and replace retiring leftists then, before 2006 and 2008.

I'm figuring Rudy will be Prez in 2008, no telling what justices he will name, though I am sure they will be ok.

[KantianBurke]

and the proper means of obtaining a Court that will restore and respect our rights is by pursuing a legally and morally dubious route of "packing?" How about we leave the legal transgressions to the Rat party

[Amelia]

How about labeling your fantasies as "Vanity"?

Warning: TOO MUCH beer is not conducive to rational thinking.

[Congressman Billybob]

It is an interesting point that while the Constitution specifies a "Supreme Court," it does not state the number of Justices. The authorized size of the Supreme Court has varied from 7 to 11. (No carry-out jokes, please.) So, FDR was within the Constitution when he proposed his "court-packing" plan to appoint one new Justice for every Justice on the Court who was older than 70.

However, FDR withdrew his plan, despite having overwhelming public support personally and a strong majority in the Senate. The traditions of America are sometimes as strong as her laws. It was only a tradition that the Court be fixed at nine Justices. But that tradition held.

(It was also only a tradition, established by George Washington, that Presidents would serve no more than two terms, and then step down. After FDR violated that tradition, the people then wrote it into the Constitution, so it will never be violated again.)

Even though I am one of the stanchest supporters of getting more Justices on the Court who actually understand and obey the Constitution, I am an example of why a Court-packing plan will fail. Court-packing is a double-edged sword which could be used by any new President to flip the Court, and flip the Constitution, in a moment.

If such a plan were proposed, I would hold my nose and join with the predictable lefties to oppose it, tooth and nail. Stability is important in every institution, but most importantly in the Supreme Court.

Put Court-packing down as a theoretical idea that is possible, but will never happen, except over my dead body. Is that stating it strongly enough?

Congressman Billybob

"This Just In: Bush Defeats Clinton"

"to Restore Trust in America"

[elenchus]

Control of the Senate--and the conservative agenda which depends on that control (including judicial appointments)--is actually much shakier than commonly realized: Are we drowning in self-congratulation?

We can't afford to gloat or be complacent when at any moment we might lose the Republican Senate majority. See the winning strategy available:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786126/posts

[Reagan Man]

>>>This being the first time since FDR that the GOP has controlled the White House and both houses of Congress...

Make that, the first time since Eisenhower was President, in 1952-1954.

[McGavin999]

Look, the simple fact is Bush is going to appoint 4 USSC Justices, probably within the next 2 years. Rhenquist and O'Conner have been wanting to retire, Stevens is doddering and Ginsberg is battling cancer. Even if Rhenquist and O'Conner are replaced with good, constitutional scholars that will swing the court heavily in the direction of a court as designed by our forefathers and not a member of the legislative branch. In addition, when Rhenquist retires, Bush gets to appoint the Chief Justice. That will either be Thomas or Scalia, both fairly young men.

I look for Bush to appoint his Chief Whitehouse council (a hispanic) to the USSC either with the first or second opening. We don't need to have a fight over increasing the size of the USSC right now, we have bigger battles to win.

[Reagan Man]

George W. Bush: On the Record
"The voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. And that's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that -- I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in -- I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint." [1st Presidential Debate, October 3, 2000; transcript CNN]

Here's a list of possible Bush nominees, from Jurist:The Legal foundation

Justice Anthony Kennedy (for Chief Justice) Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (for Chief Justice) Justice Antonin Scalia (for Chief Justice) Justice Stephen Breyer (for Chief Justice) Judge J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit) Judge Emilio M. Garza (5th Circuit) Miguel Estrada (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP) White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez12, Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III (4th Circuit) Judge Edith Jones (5th Circuit) Judge Frank Easterbrook (7th Circuit) Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (3rd Circuit) Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) Justice Janice Brown (Calif. Supreme Ct.) Judge Alex Kozinski (9th Circuit) Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson Attorney General John Ashcroft Judge Diarmiud O'Scannlain (9th Circuit) Judge Paul Niemeyer (4th Circuit) Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) Judge A. Raymond Randolph (D.C. Circuit) Professor Lillian Riemer BeVier (Univ. of Va.) John G. Roberts, Jr. (Hogan & Hartson, LLP) Judge Karen Williams (4th Circuit) Former Senator John C. Danforth (R-Missouri) Judge Pasco Bowman (8th Cir.) Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse (2d Cir.)

[Cicero]

You are correct that the Constitution doesn't specify the number of justices. But it would be a terrible precedent. The last president to try to pack the court, as the media referred to it at the time, was FDR. He tried to do it so he could pass his socialist programs, some of which the Supreme Court had struck down. Despite his great popularity, he failed.

If Bush tried it, he would instantly plummet about 30 points in the polls and nothing else would be heard about in the media for the next two years, when he would be thrown out of office.

Not only that, but if by some miracle he succeeded, he would set the precedent for the next clinton to get into the White House. No, not even bill clinton dared to try to pack the court. But wouldn't he have loved it if the Republicans had given him a precedent?

[BushMeister]

FDR tried to increase the number of SC Justices to 15, in order to stack it with liberals. Even during his amazing 4-term presidency, he couldn't get it done.

There's no way Bush is going to change the number of Supremes, nor should Bush try.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

Don't be an asshole. It was just a "what if", as I said (TWICE). And FYI, it is clearly constitutional. I know that from being not a kid who hasn't has American History, but from being someone who has, I'll bet, one more law degree than you do. Of course it's not realistic. Of course I'm just having a little fun, still glorying in the historic win of Tuesday. But this isn't DU, so why don't you cut me some slack?

[Bluegrass Federalist]

BTW, check the post immediately prior to your. It say when FDR "threatened."