The first thing Our new Democratic president should do is pack the Supreme Court...

Here's a simple suggestion-our new President should claim that a nine justice supreme court is too embroiled in 5-4 desicions that don't clearly reflect the sense of the court.Suggest two more justices-one undeniably left wing and one undenably right wing to maintain "balance yet look for less near deadlock splits. And then they should appoint Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul...Sure Ron Paul is a bigot and a homophobe-but how quick will we see state secrets disappear and habeus corpus return...

no justice should be able to mold on their chair till they die. there should be term limits on those justices, just like the president ... i say 15 years should be a good figure. then, its mandatory retirement & new appointments. why should they be able to influence highest law for the remainder of their life? that's just plain ridiculous!

first one they should start with is Clarence Thomas. i don't think he's happy in his job anyway.

Most can not set aside their political agendas.

As presidencies and congressional seats change every 4 years or so, include the SC in the mix! Times change, and so do policies, regulations, and opinions.

They'll carry Clarence out kicking and screaming. He's a major league sell out, and I never liked him anyway.

and its never going to happen.

FDR was a very popular president. Many of his early programs were struck down by the court. He tried to pack the court. It turned out to be a fiasco. Even though he was popular, he lost support and could not get it through.

Why invest all this political capital on a lost cause that will doom the new president from the start as mainly interested in political gain? Why not instead focus the efforts on righting the wrongs of this country.

In FDR's case, the Supreme Court was pretty old and they conveniently died off...so he was eventually able to replace them by attrition....

it was why I suggested going sideways into "bi-partisanship" and grabbing Paul. The most disgusting actions of this court would be anathema to both the Big K and Paul...can you picture either supporting the "Patriot Act"???

He has the power to do so at will. When the powerful felt they would lose control, they gave him all he wanted and republicans have had a stick up their ass ever since.

Even a Roosevelt couldn't pull that off.

It would also be of dubious constitutionality and merit. The constitution could lose its meaning if every new president just packs the court with more and more justices. How big could the court get after awhile, 100? If that had been done, Roe v Wade would have been thrown out a long time ago by conservative presidents packing the court. No constitutional ruling would be safe under such an idea.

they serve for life, you know.

The idea is to ADD a few.

Congress has to pass a law to change the size of the SC

The original Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of justices at six. When the Federalists were defeated in 1800, the lame-duck Congress reduced the size of the court to five — hoping to deprive President Jefferson of an appointment. The incoming Democratic Congress repealed the Federalist measure (leaving the number at six), and then in 1807 increased the size of the court to seven, giving Jefferson an additional appointment.

In 1837, the number was increased to nine, affording the Democrat Andrew Jackson two additional appointments. During the Civil War, to insure an anti-slavery, pro-Union majority on the bench, the court was increased to 10. When a Democrat, Andrew Johnson, became president upon Lincoln’s death, a Republican Congress voted to reduce the size to seven (achieved by attrition) to guarantee Johnson would have no appointments.

After Ulysses S. Grant was elected in 1868, Congress restored the court to nine. That gave Grant two new appointments. The court had just declared unconstitutional the government’s authority to issue paper currency (greenbacks). Grant took the opportunity to appoint two justices sympathetic to the administration. When the reconstituted court convened, it reheard the legal tender cases and reversed its decision (5-4).

The most recent attempt to alter the size of the court was by Franklin Roosevelt in 1937. But instead of simply requesting that Congress add an additional justice or two, Roosevelt’s convoluted scheme fooled no one and ultimately sank under its own weight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26smith.html

FDR?

Why can't water run uphill?

"I hereby order all US armed forces personnel stationed in Iraq to return home immediately."

surrender themselves as the war criminals of the Hague, as I just signed the recognization of the International Criminal Courts, and ask further for help on freezing assets of any BFEE/Carlyle/Cheney connections and returning the monies where it belongs - to the government.. and... and...

*sigh*

Hawkeye-X

And your idea of putting a racist on the court is disgusting. Habeas corpus will return immediately when a Dem president takes office.

Remember you would have 10 counterweights to Paul.But on core democratic principles you would have 2 votes and where Paul strayed Kuchinich could negate.
On Edit:Cali, I certainly see your point.My suggestion was one more thing to do while holding your nose.If you're looking at a one trick pony you should utilize that trick.

putting a racist on the court, and can you imagine how the AA community and the GBLT community would react?

But Lincoln once equivocated on his support for freeing the slaves...I'm sure someone else here has the quote if your not familiar...but the jist was that no goal was more important than saving the Union. A Ron Paul can certainly be no worse than a Scalia...If you are over 50 there is a large chance your upbringing would steer you towards both racism and homophobia. Mine did and I am hopefully past that. I hoped my suggestion would be seen as pragmatic. Can you name another Republican you would rather see on the court?

Face it, we are f*cked for a long time to come.

what we need is a fair and impartial highly qualified supreme court. but we will have a supreme court is at it`s best, a split court well into the future

the guys that set up this country gave us the procedures to counter the power of any branch of government. it`s our responsibility to make sure we do

it can't get enough votes to approve it.

and I posted it wasn't a bad idea...
You should ease the rhetoric just slightly
if you are so easily offended...
Welcome back, Cat

It may be a simple suggestion, but its not a realistic one.

For one thing, there is no chance either dennis kucinich or ron paul would get confirmed.

2 justices with the 2 most senior judges being replaced by them.

Unfortunately, probably the first two Justices that will have to be replaced are Ginsberg and Stevens. These two justices have always voted liberal.
Even with two appointments probable, the Democratic President will not be able to change the Conservative nature of the Court, until they get a chance for a third appointment.