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.

[caltrop]

Rudy in '08 and you're sure his SC nominees will be OK?

You've got to be kidding. Guiliani doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment so I wouldn't trust any of his court appointments. It's a moot point, however, since (with his views) he can't get the Republican nomination.

[Bubba_Leroy]

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

Make that, the first time since Bush was elected President, in 2000, before Jeffords decided to overturn the will of the American people and give the Senate to the demonRATs.

[SamAdams76]

So long as we keep electing Republican presidents, we'll be able to get the Supreme Court in balance again. Those lefties aren't going to live forever.

[Reagan Man]

You're right.

[Spirited]

"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."

What you conclude will be based on whether you read revisionist history of today or sources of the approximate and little later time. FDR changed history in either case..depends on your political leanings as to whether it was for better or worse. Since I see things through conservative/Constitutional glasses, my vote is for worse.

[RAWGUY]

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.)


Actually it has varied from 5 to 15 if you check back far enough.

[fqued]

Although you are technically correct, the Republicans did NOT have a majority in the senate during 1952-54. They had 48 seats, the Democrats had 47, and there was one independent. This did allow them "control" of the Senate, but one has to go back to pre-FDR days to find a time when the Republicans had a MAJORITY in the Senate and the House with a sitting president.

[jocon307]

Hey Beer, beer is good, on that point I'll agree with you, I'm happy to cut you any slack required and I concede I have no law degree; but you seem to have a remarkably thin skin. Why? I cannot imagine. I will say this, I didn't even reply to your post, but to another poster. I liked the way he said what he did, it made me chuckle, I thought it was funny. There's no need to use foul language here. This is an open forum, if you can't take the disagreement, don't start dishing out the dirty words. I work for a law firm, I'm just glad the attorneys I work with everyday aren't assh*les like you.

[MHGinTN]

I would like to see Condi Rice and Lindsey Graham on the 2008 presidential ballot. You can run either as #1 because they are both more than capable of doing the job and getting the votes!

[Flint]

I understand what you are saying in your several responses. Only thing I can add is that if it was a possiblity then the Clintons would have done it years ago. Don't think that they didn't consider it!

[Bluegrass Federalist]

Glad to see you follow your own advice on using dirty words, and I am not alone. My thin skin came from being mocked as a child who hasn't studied American history - that would irritate me even if I had been wrong in my premise, which I wasn't. If you did not intend to mock me, I apologize for my retort. If we all show a little respect for our fellow posters, it won't happen again, I am sure.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

Do you think Bush will want to go through an extra confirmation fight to nominate Scalia as CJ? There is little that would get the lefties and the Baldwins fired up like that would. A lot of people are predicting that, but asmuch as I would love to see it, I wonder if Bush will spend the political capital. Scalia would still only get one vote, but it would be played to the hilt that Bush is putting in "right-wing idealogues." My money is on White House Counsel Garza, Estrada or Ted Olsen for the first nominee, and as CJ if Rehnquist is the first to go.

[Samizdat]

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.

The income tax system is especially invasive. I feel violated everytime I have to send in an income tax return telling them about my private finances. Its inhumane. If they need money, a national sales tax is the answer, not invading people's privacy.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

I could not agree more. The abuse of the Commerce Clause is the wellspring of the expansion of federal power and government intrusiveness. The income tax gave them the funds to do it with. Both are Constitutional travesties. Unfortunately, the income tax can only be abolished by Constitutional amendment (I supposre we could also set all rates to zero).

[Verginius Rufus]

Scalia isn't that young--he was born 3/11/1936. A younger man might be a better choice.

There has been only one Supreme Court justice from Texas ever...Ramsey Clark's father. It might be time for another one, e.g. Kenneth Starr (born 7/21/1946). Would be nice if future history books detailing the events of 1998 have to refer to Starr as "future Chief Justice Kenneth Starr." I realize there is virtually no chance Bush would select him.

I hope Bush has the opportunity to select four or five justices, but let's not forget that past Republican Presidents have often picked men who did not live up to their expectations (Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter for examples).

[Ole Okie]

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.

The Supreme Court struck down several of Roosevelt's programs, most notably the NRA (National Recovery Act). And so FDR threatened to increase the SC from 9 to 13.

While his SC packing plan wasn't carried out, it so scared the sitting Justices that they opposed essentially nothing else that he pushed through Congress.

[Abcdefg]

"the people then wrote it into the Constitution, so it will never be violated again."
That was a joke, right?

[jocon307]

Beer, I was being totally self-depracating and did not intend to mock you at all with my reference to studying American History. I'm sorry you misunderstood, I'm sorry I was not clear. I always help my daughter with her history, and this year she is doing 20th century, but we are just now getting out of the First World War. This is what I was talking about; I'm getting a lot of knowledge and consider helping her a refresher course. I was just talking about my own experience and not trying to put you, or anyone down at all. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding. And further, I kind of like 9 - it's a baseball number, and all those baseball-related numbers are kind of cosmic. Bush should really make Scalia Chief (this word never looks spelled right when I write it) Justice in terms of brains; but if he gave it to Thomas, that would be great!

[Bluegrass Federalist]

Sorry, for the misunderstanding. Have a nice evening.