PDA

View Full Version : Good Morning...Popular President Threatens Supreme Court and Court Blinks



Okla-homey
2/5/2010, 06:13 AM
February 5, 1937: Roosevelt announces "court-packing" plan

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9175/courtsupremecourt.jpg
The Supreme Court of the United States. Notice Moses, the Ten Commandments, and other biblical imagery on the frieze above the porch.

73 years ago, on February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7148/court509pxfdrin1933.jpg
FDR, considered a populist saint by many, a socialist devil by others

Unquestionably, Roosevelt was trying to "pack" the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal. As you'll see, the Court got the message, relented in its opposition to FDR's programs, which grew the federal government's influence in the lives of ordinary Americans, and this shift has been called, "the switch in time that saved nine."

During the previous two years, the high court had struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.

Flushed with his landslide reelection in 1936, President Roosevelt issued a proposal in February 1937 to provide retirement at full pay for all members of the court over 70. If a justice refused to retire, an "assistant" with full voting rights was to be appointed, thus ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority.

Most Republicans and even many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called "court-packing" plan.

In April, however, before the bill came to a vote in Congress, two Supreme Court justices came over to the liberal side and by a narrow majority upheld as constitutional the National Labor Relations Act, which strengthened unions and the Social Security Act, which 73 years later has evolved into, along with Medicare and Medicaid, about 40% of the annual federal expenditure.

The majority opinion acknowledged that the national economy had grown to such a degree that federal regulation and control was now warranted.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/8116/court11336242838664.jpg
Addressed to the nine. The Supreme Court in 1937, the year Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the court. When Justice Owen Roberts (rear, second from right), an ally of the court's conservatives, voted to uphold a minimum-wage law, it was called "the switch in time that saved nine." (Bettmann / Corbis)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6923/courtjowenroberts.jpg
Justice Owen Roberts

Roosevelt's reorganization plan was thus unnecessary, and in July the Senate struck it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Soon after, Roosevelt had the opportunity to nominate his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees, ensuring FDR never again had to sweat any of his programs to grow the federal government would go down in flames at the hands of the Supreme Court.

delhalew
2/5/2010, 10:33 AM
Good find. Completely disgusting, but good find.

47straight
2/5/2010, 11:57 AM
So you're saying there is a way to talk the Supreme Court out of manufacturing "rights" out of substantive due process?

OklahomaTuba
2/5/2010, 12:52 PM
Unquestionably, Roosevelt was trying to "pack" the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.FDR was one scary dude. This should have gotten him impeached from office, or worse.

tommieharris91
2/5/2010, 01:49 PM
FDR was one scary dude. This should have gotten him impeached from office, or worse.

Find the part of the US Constitution that says he couldn't do this.

47straight
2/5/2010, 02:27 PM
Find the part of the US Constitution that says he couldn't do this.

If I have learned anything from moveon.org, it's that we can impeach the President for disagreeing with him.

delhalew
2/5/2010, 02:47 PM
Find the part of the US Constitution that says he couldn't do this.
That's how we have ended up were we are today. The constitution details what can be done and leaves the rest to the states. You are not supposed to fill in the blanks.
Consider Bush and his love of the unconstitutional executive order, also one of Obama's favorite tools.

soonerscuba
2/5/2010, 02:51 PM
That's how we have ended up were we are today. The most powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization?

tommieharris91
2/5/2010, 02:52 PM
That's how we have ended up were we are today. The constitution details what can be done and leaves the rest to the states. You are not supposed to fill in the blanks.
Consider Bush and his love of the unconstitutional executive order, also one of Obama's favorite tools.

All it says about what pertains to this is in Article II, Section 2.

(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ...Judges of the supreme Court...

There is nothing in the entire Article III or any of the Amendments that specifically sets a number of justices that must sit on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Okla-homey
2/5/2010, 08:07 PM
Right-o. The Constitution is silent on the size of the SCOTUS. At times, it's been as few as five, but as you know, we'rte up to nine. The only thing that has remained constant, is an odd number of justices so there are no ties.

SicEmBaylor
2/5/2010, 08:50 PM
The most powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization?

I'm not sure either of those are a good thing anymore.

GKeeper316
2/6/2010, 04:06 AM
The most powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization?

relatively speaking, rome has us beat on both accounts.

Okla-homey
2/6/2010, 08:07 AM
relatively speaking, rome has us beat on both accounts.

not quite. Although Rome, at her height of power, could conquer any people she chose, the US has the power to end all human life on Earth.

GKeeper316
2/6/2010, 08:45 AM
not quite. Although Rome, at her height of power, could conquer any people she chose, the US has the power to end all human life on Earth.

i said relatively speaking... the roman army was the most feared military organization that ever walked the earth.

yes we can end all human life, but that isnt a measure of how powerful we are imo. just how much value we place on technological advancement, which of course, one could argue is the measure of power. but at its height, the roman empire and its army could do whatever it pleased and there was nobody else that could stop them.

Okla-homey
2/6/2010, 08:53 AM
but at its height, the roman empire and its army could do whatever it pleased and there was nobody else that could stop them.

Ahem. Rome couldn't pacify Scotland, which is why Hadrian built a wall separating Roman-occupied England from the wild and warlike Scotland. And that, my friend, was at the height of Roman military power.

GKeeper316
2/6/2010, 09:05 AM
there are exceptions to every rule... the picts (natives of scotland) fought a guerilla war much like modern day terrorists. had the picts decided to all gather together into one big army and tried to fight the legions, they would have lost.

Frozen Sooner
2/6/2010, 12:53 PM
If I have learned anything from the Paula Jones hearings, it's that we can impeach the President for disagreeing with him.

I know, right?

47straight
2/8/2010, 12:17 PM
I know, right?

Looks like someone hasn't covered perjury in his classes yet. :)


One of the best things I ever read was an opinion (might have been a dissent) in a separation of powers case from the 80's from Scalia that dead-on predicted the Paula Jones case.


And no, I'm not keen on remembering case names.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2010, 01:43 PM
Looks like someone hasn't covered perjury in his classes yet. :)


One of the best things I ever read was an opinion (might have been a dissent) in a separation of powers case from the 80's from Scalia that dead-on predicted the Paula Jones case.


And no, I'm not keen on remembering case names.

So, yeah, how often is perjury actually prosecuted?

Okla-homey
2/8/2010, 02:48 PM
So, yeah, how often is perjury actually prosecuted?

Prosecuted? Not much. But when it is proven a member of the Bar deliberately lied under oath, the bar licensure authority in his jurisdiction tends to take a dim view. I believe Billy C. was disbarred for that bit of perjury.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2010, 03:32 PM
That he was.

C&CDean
2/8/2010, 04:07 PM
****in' lawyers...

SicEmBaylor
2/8/2010, 05:00 PM
Didn't Scooter Libby get charged, convicted, and sent to jail because of perjury?

I don't know how often perjury cases are prosecuted, but they seem to be something of a political tool these days.

47straight
2/8/2010, 09:28 PM
Didn't Scooter Libby get charged, convicted, and sent to jail because of perjury?

I don't know how often perjury cases are prosecuted, but they seem to be something of a political tool these days.

But, that's like, different.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2010, 09:35 PM
But, that's like, different.

Mainly because he was charged with five other felonies not named "Perjury."

Say what you will, but you and I both know that perjury is rarely prosecuted, and scarcely rises to the level of high crime and misdemeanor.