Should the SCOTUS be expanded to 11+ members when Dems regain power?

Posters are encouraged to add comments below!

We got out hands slapped then for the obvious power grab, and we'd get our hands slapped again if we tried it today. If FDR couldn't do it, no one can.

If the GOP can make naked power grabs, why can't the Dems? I also think it would be fitting to have FDR's "ghost" take their advantage away.

If FDR couldn't do it with a solid Democrat Senate and House, no one can...

Ironically, the swing voter was named Roberts:

"At this time, the nine justices on the Supreme Court were actually divided into roughly three groups. Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler made up the conservative wing. These men viewed the Constitution as the guardian of property and the capitalist system. Justice Sutherland once commented that, "the meaning of the Constitution does not change with the ebb and flow of economic events." On the other hand, the three liberals on the Court, Justices Brandeis, Cardozo, and Stone, saw the need to interpret the Constitution in the light of new realities and problems. In between these two groups were two moderates: Justice Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.

Although appointed by a Republican (Hoover), Chief Justice Hughes tended to vote with the liberals in cases concerning New Deal legislation. This left a divided court with Justice Roberts providing the "swing vote." In 1935 and 1936, Roberts sided with the four conservatives to make up the five-vote majority that struck down a number of New Deal laws."

Deja Vu all over again?

"In the midst of the "court-packing" fight, a series of unexpected events occurred that finally sank FDR's court-reform bill. On March 29, 1937, the Supreme Court reversed itself and upheld a state minimum-wage law very similar to laws that the court had previously struck down. This case was decided by another 5–4 vote. But this time the four conservative justices were in the minority. Shortly afterward, the Supreme Court ruled as constitutional both the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act, two key pieces of New Deal legislation. These cases, too, were decided by slim 5–4 majorities.

For some reason, Justice Owen Roberts decided to switch sides in these cases, thus providing the three liberals along with Chief Justice Hughes a bare one-vote majority. These decisions weakened the argument that younger, more liberal justices were needed on the Supreme Court. The press quickly called the sudden shift by Justice Roberts "the switch in time that saved nine." In the meantime, one of the conservative justices announced his intention to retire, thus giving FDR his first opportunity to make a Supreme Court appointment.

Despite these developments, Roosevelt refused to withdraw his court-reform bill. While he did agree to compromise, FDR's chances of getting the bill through Congress began to look poor. The Senate Judiciary Committee, although dominated by Democrats, issued a report that recommended against the president's proposal. "This bill," the report declared, "is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this Country."

The last hope of the bill's supporters rested with the persuasive powers of the Senate Democratic Majority Leader, Joe Robinson. When he died suddenly before the full Senate voted, the court-reform bill was doomed. By late July 1937, Roosevelt gave in and agreed to drop the bill."

History's interesting, isn't it?

Closer than I had learned myself years ago, studying this. But for the court's conciliatory self preservation, last minute deaths and so forth, FDR could easily have gotten his way. If Democrats were to come to power after massive scandals clean house in the GOP, I could see this come to pass as part of a package of ‘sunshine’ anti corruption measures.

Creating the DHS a few years ago frankly seemed a taller order than expanding the SCOTUS again, and that was accomplished despite all sorts of opposition, turf wars, expense and organizational conflicts.

Thanks for the post!

it was called "Packing the Court", and even the Dems thought it was unfair, and it failed. Eventually, the conservatives who were blocking New Deal legislation died or retired. We must be patient.

SCOTUS kept cutting FDR off at the knees with their "that's not the federal government's role" bullshit. People like to squawk about how FDR didn't really accomplish much with the economy until about 1940, but they never mention SCOTUS' role in that.

The SCOTUS, IMO, should never be an even number, as it makes a "tie" possible.

...but your point is well taken.

And life is uncertain.

so as to make a tie, stalemate less likely.

So 11 or 13 if we wanna go that way.

And then we can make it 21 people...and so on...and so on...

Point well taken however.

, which they would if the Dems passed a law like that because voters would not stand for it.

I'm not so sure the public couldn't be made to come around to this idea. We live in a different world today.

Food for thought, however.

We can use PATRIOT Act, which will still be on the books, against the rightwing. Declare the GOP a terrorist organization. Arrest all rightwing judges simply because of their membership in the Federalist Society.

Once we do that, we can begin to reform the judiciary by doubling the size of SCOTUS. The reason is more than ideology. SCOTUS only hears a minute number of cases simply because there isn't enough judges to handle the case load.

There are other reforms such as reforming Congress, but that is outside the scope of the OP.

If you want to save the Republic, you must be prepared to do what it takes to turn back the clock and demolish what began with Ronald Reagan.

Give it a read when you have the time!

"After November – Proposals for a Kerry Presidency"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2500873

Declare the GOP a terrorist organization...nice. Are we going to send folks to re-education camps too? Or just concentration camps.

I'm going for popcorn...

onenote

onenote

;)

:)

The GOP is a terrorist organization and should be outlawed!

You would destroy the country.

The Republic is long dead. The Empire is in full display.

You can’t win by just playing cards. Leaving aside your feelings toward IndianaGreen’s specific suggestions, more creative, forceful political and legal actions are certainly required on the part of the Democratic Party to counter the GOP’s corrupt political machine or we will always remain in the wilderness.

Are you among those who feel this situation is simply lost to our generation, or do you feel there is a way to regain a balance on the court via another route? Increasing the court size has been done in the past, so it’s not as unprecedented or extreme as some here have outlined, but I’d be happy to entertain other strong strategies that result in the balance of power tipping back our way.

What are your thoughts on how we get there?

as it did for FDR.

I'm not so sure I want to wait a generation or two for change and the climate is different today after a half decade of arrogance, disenfranchisement and thuggery.

Who on the SCOTUS do you see changing their left/right political orientation should something of this nature occur?

Edited to add: My posts seem to attract your interest! You also posted to my Kerry thread last year(referenced elsewhere in this discussion). With 54 posts to your credit, I'm in a select group, it seems. :)

one to be named later?

It doesn't work that way. I am as sorry as anyone that that is so. But, we are screwed.

That is a dangerous and unnecessary move.

Or have other posters here already voiced your concerns?

That is just a couple steps away from having justices elected. It is important to keep the court as far away from the electoral process as possible.

as mentioned above in post #10. Your points are well taken however!

I'm sorry, but that smells of trying to create a one party dictatorship. If those sorts of actions are taken, we are well on our way to the complete destruction of the American political system as we know it and will plunge into a realm of political chaos where when a party takes control it uses every power it can possibly use to assert itself in all aspects of the function of this country. Even as much as I dislike the Republicans, such action would be insanity.

I'm not sure we will ever see the daylight. Your description sounds more like the current situation, rather than the future. It took extreme politics to get us here, it will likely take similar to extract us. It's hard to win in a fixed casino.

I see this as simply using their own tactics back against them. If we are subject to these sorts of politics, payback seems fair play, and may warn others off going down this road at a later point.

Thanks for your thoughts, however!

We should cleanse America from the rightwing rabble in the same way we cleansed Germany, Italy, and Japan after World War II.

If you don't have the stomach to restore the Republic, then get out of the way!

I think more parties not less would be better.

..."democraticunderground.com" when I clicked it. How'd I end up in freeperville?

n/t

When the lifetime appointment was created, a Justice could expect to stay in office for 10 or 15 years. Nowdays, he can expect to stay at least 30 years and sometimes it is good to change people as times evolve.

So, I would like to see a time-limited (10-15 years) non renewable appointment.

Thanks!

disolve the Chiefs positions, and then with only three liberal members on the court bump it back up to nine members plus reinstate the chiefs position, and then just for good measures pass a law requiring a 75% majority to change the structure of the court.

Dirty and unethical as all hell, but fun nonetheless.

I like it. If only to see Scalia's reaction. It would almost be worth leaving him on to make him twist, powerless, on the bench.

since he is the only one mentioned in the Constitution.