General Discussion

Cuthbert Allgood

(5,339 posts)

30. I don't think he really wanted the number to increase.

Fri Jun 29, 2018, 01:01 PM

Jun 2018

He just wanted to SCOTUS to back his plans using the Commerce Clause. Everyone know that his packing plan was not a good idea, but they also knew Congress would do what he wanted. So the needed number of justices flipped to allow his economic plans. Then there was no need for the court packing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I heard of a possible PLAN on Morning Joe this a.m. [View all] Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 OP

Enlarging #, some history. NOT an easy lift. elleng Jun 2018 #1

Each step is very high risk of course; RePutins rigging elections and SCROTUS enables them to do it. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #2

It's hard to know the votes required. Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #18

Sure, and if my aunt had wheels she'd be a pastry cart. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #3

:) Confirming for OP that congress can change the # Hortensis Jun 2018 #40

I hope to be pleasantly rather than unpleasantly surprised, The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #42

I am terribly afraid that we could have to crash Hortensis Jun 2018 #44

FDR tried it already lapfog_1 Jun 2018 #4

I don't think he really wanted the number to increase. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #30

WE don't want the number to increase, we want exactly the same thing FDR did Hamlette Jun 2018 #46

Interesting. Any sources you can share? KPN Jun 2018 #48

sure Hamlette Jun 2018 #68

I'll check it out. I thought maybe you had a book KPN Jun 2018 #70

I've read quite a few books on fdr over the years but can't think of which might talk about this Hamlette Jun 2018 #72

Was FDR confronted with a GOP that consistently KPN Jun 2018 #75

I think it was a guest or two on the MJ show. Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #78

Weakened him? Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #71

The Democrats lost more than 70 seats in the 1938 house elections onenote Jun 2018 #73

thanks onenote. I thought it was a disaster. Hamlette Jun 2018 #81

it didn't make it possible because it didn't pass. n/t Hamlette Jun 2018 #80

I would prefer to see Justices limited to 9-year terms... kentuck Jun 2018 #5

requires an amendment DetroitLegalBeagle Jun 2018 #11

I would rather see the rules of conduct enforced. Caliman73 Jun 2018 #15

Maybe if we win back congress they can bring up charges against Thomas now? Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #25

Pretty tough to 86 somebody who's been there for 25+ years The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #43

Many other countries, including my own luvtheGWN Jun 2018 #64

That would require the same # of votes, though. Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #19

You think it's a good idea to be having a confirmation of a new judge PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 2018 #22

Reconfirmed every nine years it says, at least now it does dunno if changed mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #29

Well, certainly we wouldn't do all 9 in one year. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #31

No, each re-confirmation would be based on when they were seated ... mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #33

Having even one judge a year reconfirmed would suck. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #35

I'm just talking about the math involved in the proposal ... mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #37

Here's the challenge no_hypocrisy Jun 2018 #6

The S.Ct. can overturn Roe v Wade. Congress can't. nt Honeycombe8 Jun 2018 #79

It's probably more likely that we'll take back the House and name Hillary speaker. Tatiana Jun 2018 #7

Well that's never going to happen. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #32

I'd like Lieu or Schiff, myself ... mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #34

I'd like Bustos, Jefferies, or Linda Sanchez Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #38

Chief Justice Barack Obama Freddie Jun 2018 #41

It will never happen, BUT lapucelle Jun 2018 #77

We don't have to do anything other than win congress and Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #8

How do you propose getting the GOP to agree? FBaggins Jun 2018 #12

It ws a new thing when they did it. Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #16

+1,000,000,000 vi5 Jun 2018 #21

Nope. It wasn't new at all FBaggins Jun 2018 #24

I agree. We shouldn't even be having this discussion KPN Jun 2018 #53

KPN Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #58

Judiciary Act of 1869 DetroitLegalBeagle Jun 2018 #9

+1 uponit7771 Jun 2018 #74

Republicans already control the House/Senate and White House FBaggins Jun 2018 #10

The fact that they are literally kicking our ass? Moostache Jun 2018 #17

They didn't get every vote they wanted FBaggins Jun 2018 #26

Because Republicans already had a 5-4 majority on the court NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #56

hmmmm...good (but frightening) question. PearliePoo2 Jun 2018 #23

It isn't likely to get 60 Democrats either FBaggins Jun 2018 #27

This was my thought. dogman Jun 2018 #39

I heard the exact same conversation on Thom Hartmann's show yesterday. peekaloo Jun 2018 #13

I watched this too! Thanks for posting!! Gave me a little hope this morning! PearliePoo2 Jun 2018 #14

Heavy lift onenote Jun 2018 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author greymattermom Jun 2018 #28

Don't Give Trump & The Repugs Any Ideas Here.... global1 Jun 2018 #36

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2018 #49

Increasing SCJ's to 11 is the only way to negate this travesty donkeypoofed Jun 2018 #45

And "IF" we were able to do all of that, world wide wally Jun 2018 #47

In Supreme Court Justices, I'm looking for the wisdom of moderate elders bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #50

FDR tried that, he got resistance even from his own party. It won't work today, either. George II Jun 2018 #51

FDR tried it and got slapped down workinclasszero Jun 2018 #52

Or.... wryter2000 Jun 2018 #54

I have a PLAN that actually will work. mr_liberal Jun 2018 #55

I would think that Thomas would hold out for as long as possible NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #59

Hard to credit a "plan" as "will work"... FBaggins Jun 2018 #61

How about vote democratic, and legislate and pass federal laws that are constitutional Freethinker65 Jun 2018 #57

This is not a "plan". It's merely a goal, and a major uphill battle. Texin Jun 2018 #60

It's called court-packing. It's possible, but very difficult. TygrBright Jun 2018 #62

I would rather see us work on something murielm99 Jun 2018 #63

It didn't work for FDR because we had real patriotic politicians back then bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #65

Even if we won enough to begin this process LiberalLovinLug Jun 2018 #66

Thank you. RandomAccess Jun 2018 #67

More justices, more justice! Great idea. oasis Jun 2018 #69

End lifetime appointments. sarcasmo Jun 2018 #76

Better to declare Trump election illegitimate....IMPEACH his nominees. Thunderbeast Jun 2018 #82