Posted on 07/24/2005 5:39:47 PM PDT by genefromjersey
Packing the Court : A Recipe for Disaster
My dad was a “Roosevelt man” through and through; but, in 1937 ,Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to make an end run around the checks and balances of the Constitution by “packing” three additional judges-all sympathetic to his goals-into an all-new ,Roosevelt-friendly, 12 judge Supreme Court.
In doing so, he lost the respect of the people like my dad, and came close to being swept out of office by an angry electorate.
The people understood very clearly, FDR already had control of the House and the Senate. If he could secure control of the Court,he would have been in a position to become absolute dictator – accountable to no one ; and the people wanted no part of that !
One would think the lessons of 1937 would be well learned, but it is clear our political parties have forgotten it.
Both parties have worked overtime on a modern-day version of Court Packing: the application of political “litmus tests”.
Each party seeks to emplace judges who will hand them the keys to the candy store – somewhere down the road.
Confronted with this charge, they barely blush as they deny it…if they deny it at all.
IT IS LONG SINCE TIME WE STOPPED THIS STUPID NONSENSE !!!
We need judges who know the law, who respect and abide by the Constitution, and who can be counted on,by virtue of good, ethical character, to apply the law fairly – regardless of who is before the Court.
If we continue these ridiculous attempts to pack the court,we may someday succeed- not beyond our wildest dreams, but beyond our worst nightmares.
Notes: My dad continued to support President Roosevelt,but was much less enthusiastic about him: sometimes voting for him as “the lesser of two evils”.
Revisionist scholars have often claimed FDR’s court packing attempt was brought about by his anger at an “obstructionist court” – but the truth is,his Administration began planning a “court re-organization” coup in 1933-some four years earlier.
Marian C. McKenna, Professor Emeritus at Alberta University,has written a stunning book: “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War : The Court Packing Crisis of 1937”.
Book review link here: http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0625.shtml
Definitely worth a visit to your local library or bookstore !
Here is usable link:
http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0625.shtml
The big message the GOP needs to send out is that appointing Constitutional abiding Justices is not packing the court, it is not extreme, it is not an ideology beyond belief in our Nation's Constitution and the principles that gave rise to it. A simple message that many Americans seem not not grasp.
Sorry, but what FDR did and the present quasi application of political “litmus tests” are two very different things.
FDR was attempting to put his lackeys on the court, any so called litmus test is more for the media circus than for picking judges.
Well, in the end he did pack the Court with his people, didn't he? I mean by 1941 the only justices that weren't appointed by FDR were Roberts (appointed by Hoover, a "moderate conservative") and Stone (who was appointed by Coolidge, but was so liberal that FDR made him chief justice).
We need judges who know the law, who respect and abide by the Constitution, and who can be counted on,by virtue of good, ethical character, to apply the law fairly – regardless of who is before the Court.
------
And following that thinking, we have just reason to eliminate four of them right now. They are the liberal activists we have come to see, who think the court is for MAKING LAW to suit their LIBERAL AGENDA, trashing the Constitution and our rights. And they just did it again!!!
Is the sky falling? Bush's judicial agenda compared to FDR's attempted end run is too far fetched.
Sorry, the numbers do not seem to support that statement. Below are the total electoral vote margins for Roosevelt's three incumbent victories :
1936: 523-8
1940: 449-82
1944: 432-99
Even in popular vote the closest (1944) was long after the court stacking was an issue.
There's no parallel at all. In the first place, packing the court was an attempted move by FDR to add more justices to the court in order to change it without having to wait for any retirements. In the second place, FDR was a socialist activist; Bush is a conservative who wants to restore the court to what it used to be.
Basically, Bush does not want to use the court to push his political agenda on the country, but instead to reform the court so it ceases to push the liberal agenda on the country, which is what it is doing now. The court would do less, not more.
No comparison whatever.
"Working quietly, Attorney General Cummings drafted a bill that, on the surface, appeared to streamline the entire federal court system. But the real target was the Supreme Court. Cummings proposed that Congress pass a law granting the president the power to nominate an additional judge for every federal judge who, having served a minimum of 10 years, did not resign or retire within six months after reaching age 70. In effect, this would enable FDR to add up to six more justices to the Supreme Court as well as nearly 50 more lower-court federal judges. Of course, the Senate would still have to approve his nominations."
So if the People pick a plank of one-Party packers, how many picks of the People's picked packers can the powerless peckers kerplunk?
You will love this painfully stupid article from this painfully stupid author.
Roberts appears to fit the bill. Do you disagree?
What a lame article and idiotic supposition.
We are light years away from any "court packing". Even if Luttig and Brown and Roberts were to replace O'Connor, Rehnquist and Ginsberg, that would still be only 4 conservatives, 4 Marxists/radical liberals and the unknown (Roberts).
This author is not just "smoking dope", but using crack.
You have mail
Agree--perhaps the most stupid supposition of 2005. See post #15.
One thing we have to remember is that the flaming Marxists believe liberals are "centrists" and moderates are "right-wing". Maybe this explains this stupid belief; regardless, what a totally moronic article.
The author just didn't know when to quit.
The premise of this piece is flawed: The Democrats want activist judges who will look at the Constitution as a "guideline" - - until, that is, it gets in the way of ruling based on the chic political correctness of the day. The Democrats want a Supreme Court which actively supports their goal of bringing Euro-style secular socialism to America.
The Republicans, on the other hand, want judges who will faithfully respect the text of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers, with the understanding that the Constitution includes a tool for its own amendment should it be the will of the people to exercise that prerogative from time to time.
Apples and oranges.
Maybe, but the first step toward packing the court is to unpack it. It's packed now, and chaos has resulted. What rational person respects the Supreme Court?
Kazillions.
Hilarious! If only one of the talking heads on a Sunday political would slip thin in somehow...
Well, that's only part of the picture. In the 1938 off-year elections, the Democrats suffered heavy losses, especially in the House of Representatives.
Also, check out the popular vote.
1936- Roosevelt over Landon, 61% to 36%.
1940- Roosevelt over Wilkee, 55% to 45%
1944- Roosevelt over Dewey, 54% to 46%
Though Roosevelt won two more terms, he never fully recovered from the fallout of his court-packing scheme.
Confronted with this charge, they barely blush as they deny it…if they deny it at all.
IT IS LONG SINCE TIME WE STOPPED THIS STUPID NONSENSE !!!
We need judges who know the law, who respect and abide by the Constitution, and who can be counted on,by virtue of good, ethical character, to apply the law fairly – regardless of who is before the Court.
But you see, the whole issue is respect for the law and the Constitution as written and adopted. Republicans are trying to get judges who will do that, and only that, to the best of their human abilities.That was once the normal standard for judicial appointees, but the Democratic Party is against that very thing.
And I know that a writer who can say, "IT IS LONG SINCE TIME WE STOPPED THIS STUPID NONSENSE !!!" will respond, "That is what the Republicans say. The Democrats say the opposite. The truth lies in between." My reply to that is, well, aren't you special! Democrats only think they are superior to Republicans, and Republicans only think they are superior to Democrats - but you think you are superior to Republicans and Democrats!
Can you adduce any proof that the truth "must lie in between?" IMHO you will not - at bottom, the assumption that neither side is closer to the truth than the other satisfies the writer's desire for importance - and no other logical criterion. In fact, people who assume that the average of the Democrat and the Republican positions is "truth" actually give an incentive to the partisans to become more partisan - if I demand more, you will give me half of the extra that I demand. So your plea for "moderation" turns out to be an engine for additional partisanship.
No, there is no escape from the need to actually think about the claims of the two sides and - like any arbitrator - challenge the two sides to each come up with their most reasonable proposal, with the promise that the most reasonable proposal will get your support. You thought that you could get by on the cheap, not analyzing the issues but merely affecting an air of superiority, and come out with everyone marveling at your wisdom. In your dreams.
But you see, the whole issue is respect for the law and the Constitution as written and adopted. Republicans are trying to get judges who will do that, and only that, to the best of their human abilities.
------
Exactly. And the libs are trying their best to corrupt the SCOTUS, and all other courts for that matter, TO LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH...to the benefit of the libs. And it is amazing how these criminal morons do not think WE SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!
All very true. But I was specifically taking issue with the phrase "almost swept out of office". I think we both agree that was an overstatement.
You know as long as we are on Roosevelt, most people do not realize (and to be honest, I was one of them until recently), that the worst year of the depression was 1937. Can you imagine what the Dems would say today regarding a republican who after four years in office, he had succeeded in making a horrible situation even worse?
In 1934, Roosevelt wanted a Court that would ignore the Constitution and approve whatever programs he could get through Congress. With the fabled "switch in time that saved nine," Mr. Justice Reynolds changed from voting to defend the Constitution, to voting to approve whatever Roosevelt and the Democrats would pass into law.
Today, the problem is the exact reverse. We have a Court that by a bare majority (often 5-4) is violating the Constitution in order to let Congress do anything it cares to do, regardless of constitutional limitations on its powers. Plus there is the LITTLE detail that President Bush is not proposing to "pack the Court." He is only exercising his constitutional duty to nominate Justices.
And by the way, the people were not so upset about Roosevelt's court-packing plan that they nearly voted him out of office. Dead wrong on both points. It was not a major issue with the public, and only death could defeat Roosevelt.
Congressman Billybob
I was shocked to read in today's AZ Republic newspaper that "undocumented" aliens, who can show proof of employment and a living-wage income, are receiving bank home mortgage loans.
So much for the U.S. of A. Constitution, Bill of Rights - they're gone. In their place, we have Patriot Act II.
And people once called Nixon, "Trickie Dickie."
I was shocked to read in today's AZ Republic newspaper that "undocumented" aliens, who can show proof of employment and a living-wage income, are receiving bank home mortgage loans.
------
I hope the banks CHOKE ON IT!!!
If W appoints someone who meets those qualifications, it is called "court packing."
Either way, banks don't lose. They have us taxpayers.
John, that's not the way I remember it !
Are you saying (in all YOUR marvelous wisdom) you want BIASED judges ? If so, what should their bias encompass ?
What limitations,if any, should be placed on bias ?
Should we select judges on the basis of ethnicity,or gender,or religious orientation ?
Many think we should-and,yes, as you scroll through the responses here,I'm sure you will find some whose views you consider "a bit extreme". Should their views prevail over yours ?
Yes.(in all YOUR marvelous wisdom)Well, let me temper that by saying that "we" don't nominate judges - the President of the United States does that, and the United States only has one president at a time.
But most unambiguously, it is a proper litmus test for a judge that that person not be actively opposed to the practice of Christianity. And that such person be willing to read out of the Constitution any conceit that religious (or any other) freedom protects behavior which was anathema to all Americans at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, absent constitutional authority in the form of a constitutional amendment or at the very least specific authority in a subsequently passed law.
So in that sense, yes - there should be a religious litmus test, and the Democratic Party would apply the very opposite test of requiring that judges and justices be "neutral against" the free exercise of Christianity.
There are thousands if not millions of Christian religious symbols on government property - and if ever those gravestones of honored dead servicemen be overturned there should, by the terms of the Declaration of Independence, be a revolution in the country.
As to race and gender quotas, who is to say whether - in a population of only 9 SCOTUS justices - a given black or woman is a "quota hire?" I think that Thomas Sowell should be on SCOTUS, if anything because he is black (tho I am not), but mostly because he loves freedom and respects my exercise of it in principle and therefore would creatively uphold the principles and original intent of the Constitution.
Actually I do, like most, consider my own self to have some wisdom but - and this is a crucial point - i do not presume to demand or insinuate that you are wrong to consider the possibility that I am in one point or another mistaken. By all means, test what I say against historical reality and empirical truth. Persuade me, if you identify an error of mine.
That is an extremely liberal departure from our historical past. It would establish a policy liberals would sink their teeth into quickly if ever they regained control of the Congress and White House.
That is an extremely liberal departure from our historical past. It would establish a policy liberals would sink their teeth into quickly if ever they regained control of the Congress and White House.
-----
Yes, that just happens to be their exact plan and have been working on it since the Clinton era, and most likely before...it is correctly referred to as "instutionalizing liberalism/socialism by judical fiat" -- they are making and taking every effort to make the SCOTUS (and lower courts) into liberal law-making bodies -- a COMPLETE PERVERSION OF WHAT THE JUDICIARY WAS EVERY INTENDED TO BE.
I'd heard FDR's attempts to pack the court cost him dearly in the 1938 Congressional elections. That year the Republicans gain 81 seats in the House, and 8 seats in the Senate. The voters handed FDR a stunning defeat of his proposal.
What happens if our candidate "does not actively oppose the practice of Christianity" - but DOES oppose the practice of other religions (which might have been anathema at the time the Constitution was enacted)?
Should the parameters be broadened ?
Even if Roberts ascends, Scalia replaces Renquist and a reliable conservative takes his seat, they are still arrayed against Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy. Hardly "packing".
The principle of the First Amendment is that your religion is not a disability for any of your other rights - you cannot, for example, be disenfranchised because you are an Episcopalian or even a Jew. No matter that Jews are a minority now, and were even more so in 1788.But. Adhering to a religion that requires that you behead "infidels" is not a defense against a murder charge. No matter how certain you are that your victim is in fact an atheist. IOW the adherence to any other religion, or no religion, is not an excuse for any individual to persecute Christians. Full stop. To the extent that the practice of your religion does not imply substantive constraint on that of Christianity as traditionally practiced in America, your right to your choice of religious exercise is unambiguous.
But if your practice of religion does reduce the freedom of tradional Christian exercise of religion. then "freedom of religion" becomes an ambiguous concept - and the right of the people to practice the religion (and various forms thereof which existed in 1788) of Christianity logically must come first until and unless the Constitution is amended by the states to change that presumption.
Better.... UNPACK THE COURT NOW.. by appointeing some real conservatives.. unlike Roberts... Ann Coulter has it right.. Roberts is another Souter..
I think your comment demonstrates the essential error of packing. (By the way,I WOULD like to see more conservative representation on the court !)
Just for the record,here's what I wrote on July 21:
I see by the papers folks are getting all worked up over John Roberts : the latest Supreme Court nominee.
I don’t envy the judge his role in the confirmation hearings : an unmannerly-and-intricate procedure by which high judicial offices are filled.
Roberts will be praised by some;reviled by others. Assorted special interest groups will express their chagrin – or joy – over his selection,and braying pols will elbow a path to the eagerly waiting media cameras.
In the end,Judge Roberts may be tossed aside-in favor of a "compromise candidate"…who the Administration has had in mind all along.
Initial nominees – no matter how qualified – are sometimes like the unfortunate first cow herded into a piranha – infested stream . Quite often, they wind up as an offering : sacrificed so the rest of the group can get across.
The Senators who conduct these bloody inquisitions like to pretend that they
are exerting control on the Supreme Court , and that all of their posturing and pontificating shows High Court nominees who is "boss".
Let me share a deep,dark secret I’ve learned over the years: There is no way to predict what a judge will become : liberal,conservative, or arachibutyrophobic,once the oath has been administered,and the fancy robes have been donned.
The best we can hope for is that all judges will consider the Law of the Land carefully, and apply it fairly – regardless of the angry scowls, and anguished howls from Left or Right.
That’s exactly the role the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.