Chicago politics.
Posted on 03/17/2010 7:15:42 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Barack Obama is gunning for a confrontation with the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts has signaled that he welcomes the fight. Last week, the chief justice described the president’s State of the Union condemnation of the Citizens United decision as “very troubling” and complained that the speech had “degenerated to a political pep rally.” Roberts was making an argument about etiquette--dissent was fine, he said, but Obama had somehow transgressed the boundaries of civilized discourse by delivering his attack to a captive audience. But he was implicitly making a political argument as well. That is, Roberts seems to have joined the battle with Obama because he thinks the Court can win it.
As a matter of history, this argument is wrong: In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court, it’s almost always the president who prevails. Using the Court as a punching bag puts Obama in the company of his greatest predecessors, Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts--all of whom bashed the Court for thwarting the will of the people. As long as he plays his cards carefully, Obama has much to gain from challenging John Roberts, and the Roberts Court much to lose.
The successful history of presidential Court-bashing shows how fragile the justices are in the face of presidential attacks supported by a mobilized majority of the country. Thomas Jefferson attacked his distant cousin and arch-rival, Chief Justice John Marshall, for his “twistifications” and suggested he couldn’t be trusted; he encouraged Jeffersonian Republicans to intimidate Federalist judges by impeaching Justice Samuel Chase. Marshall reciprocated Jefferson’s disdain, calling him “the great Lama of the Mountain.” But Marshall was so spooked by the Chase impeachment that he anxiously suggested in a letter to Chase that Congress should be allowed to reverse Supreme Court decisions it considered “unsound.”
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
Something to consider ....Obama can attempt to “Pack the Court” al la FDR.. what stopped FDR was he didn’t have a majority in the congress.
The O if he wanted could change the number of justices and stuff it with lefties like him self ..
See the Wicki snip below ...
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, but Article III authorizes the Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices. As the country grew geographically, Congress increased the number of justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: the court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863.
At the request of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act (1866) which provided that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court should have eventually reached seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. However, this law did not play out to completion, for in the Judiciary Act of 1869,[74] also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of justices was again set at nine, where it has since remained.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937, seeking to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement; under Roosevelt’s proposal, such appointments would continue until the Court reached a maximum size of 15 justices. Ostensibly, the proposal was made to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but the President’s actual purpose was to pack the Court with justices who would support New Deal policies and legislation.[75] This plan, usually called the “Court-packing Plan”, failed in Congress and proved a political disaster for Roosevelt.[76] The balance of the Court shifted with the retirement of Willis Van Devanter and the confirmation of Hugo Black in August 1937. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven Supreme Court justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[77]
Obama needs 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to stack the courts. He doesn’t have them and never will.
Chicago politics.
Straw man alert!
“That is, Roberts seems to have joined the battle with Obama because he thinks the Court can win it. As a matter of history, this argument is wrong...”
If Obama keeps dumping on the Court,he may loose the wise Latina. She has a life appointment and her own personal importance to look out for. I doubt that she will give up her leftist leanings. I do however think, she may not want to give up her Constitutional powers to support Obama’s rise to power.
Obama will not be another Hitler.
Germans loved Hitler.
I know of noone personally that likes Obams azz.
Military will tell him to fugg off if he tries to use them
against us if he declares martial law.
We just gotta’ get the usurper out of our whitehouse.
That is, Roberts seems to have joined the battle with Obama because he thinks the Court can win it.
More mindreading from the Left.
In battles between a popular president and an anti-majoritarian Court, it’s almost always the president who prevails.
With regards to the current administration, what's wrong with the above sentence?
As long as he plays his cards carefully, Obama has much to gain from challenging John Roberts, and the Roberts Court much to lose.
Nurturing the banana republic in the heart of every leftist.
If and when they get all three branches (executive, legislative,, and judicial) of the federal government in their total control. We will have become a nation beyond recovery. We are in fact threatened seriously with that circumstance anyway. The Constitution is being ignored as if it did not exist.
God help us in our day, in Jesus name, amen.
this is dangerous talk
it is dangerous to be publilcy identified as an enemy of THE WON
Let’s hope we don’t find Justice Roberts hanging in his closet, in his underwear. We have some serious dangerous despots now running the USA.
God speed Justice Roberts
The WH actually floated this idea (expanding the SC) a few weeks ago.
I suspect they’d be able to do it, too.
“...Dems will demand that Thomas recuse himself since his wife is a “known activist” against Obama.”
The Deems can demand all they want...there is no legal or constitutional reason for his recusal...
Plus I am sure he has not forgotten his treatment at the hands of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee all those years ago, and would relish the opportunity to cram one up their MMMM....MMMM....MMMMMM’s
Personally, I think this may be the one protection for the SC. Many Americans have very little idea what the Court does (rule on constitutional issues), but still they see it as an institution that is in a sense above or apart from politics. Bambi was trying to whip up populist-style hatred of the Court, but I don't think it's going to be that easy for him.
We are not dealing with “presidential attacks supported by a mobilized majority of the country,” as the article suggests.
Rather, the “mobilized masses” detest this President.
I recall reading a quote from very liberal Justice Stevens earlier this week in which he said he would be attending no more SOTU speeches because they had become political events.
Sounds like the White House might not be in favor with any of the justices, if even Stevens is peeved.
This guy is delusional.
The character of a man shows in his enemies, and John Roberts’ character shines through Obama’s cheap-shot shenanigans.
Thank God for John Roberts! I knew he wouldn’t turn out to be another wimpy traitor like Souter.
Obama can attempt to “Pack the Court” al la FDR . . . what stopped FDR was he didn’t have a majority in the congress.
When FDR tried it, the Democrats had just won a big majority in Congress - and even then packing the court was too controversial to pass.FDR lost a lot of popularity at the time over his attempt. It wasn't the only time he overplayed his hand; after the attack on Pearl Harbor he demanded the defeat of the isolationist congressmen who had opposed his foreign policy. But since 80% of the public had opposed entry into the war prior to Pearl Harbor, and since the congressmen in question had gone hawkish after Pearl Harbor in sync with their constituents, FDR's appeal backfired.
I doubt a president who is already underwater in the polls can gain by trying something that blew up in FDR's face when he tried to do it.
It is however perfectly true that the number of justices was left by the Framers to a simple majority in Congress. I would favor a constitutional amendment to fix the number of justices at 11 and term limit them to 22 years, so that each president would get two nominees per 4-year term. And possibly make those two nominees be "running mates" of the presidential candidates, so that the people would know the candidate's judicial philosophy.
Idiot - no he wasn't.
Roberts simply stated that there was a place for dissent - and that the STOTU speach was not the place.
This pic is of one of the ACORN’s best thugs? Are you kidding me? Let me at this mope. His head would be on the pavement before he could blink!! Give me a freakin’ break!!
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.