General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

29. Actually, FDR did succeed.

Wed May 21, 2014, 02:06 AM

May 2014

His goal was not to increase the size of the SCOTUS just for the sake of having more Supremes. His goal was to get the SCOTUS to stop striking down New Deal legislation so he and Congress could save the country from the toilet.

After he announced that he would be increasing the size of the court, the SCOTUS did a 180 degree turn and expanded the scope of the commerce clause to an incredible degree. So, FDR got exactly what he wanted.

BTW, the term "court packing" is unnecessarily pejorative. The Constitution allows increases in the size of the Court. The size had been increased a couple of times before FDR and no one calls those increases "court packing."

I suspect Republicans of FDRs day came up with that libelous label. No reason for Democrats who admire FDR-or should--to keep using it. He saved the fucking country.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

226 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you want a president who fights like hell for the 99%? [View all] MannyGoldstein May 2014 OP

I want a President who fights for me the way Obama fights for his corporate owners. nt Demo_Chris May 2014 #1

corporate 'owners'? bigtree May 2014 #2

What do you think he did? woo me with science May 2014 #4

Looking forwards to this explanatlon myself. As for my meaning... Demo_Chris May 2014 #8

I am certain most people around here would have understood something along those lines. woo me with science May 2014 #10

re: coming back to explain, not quite, but he was certainly willing to continue the ruse bobduca May 2014 #191

I've been writing about my views on race for most of my adult life. bigtree May 2014 #198

to feign offense, and imply Demo Chris's statement about obama being owned by corporate owners bobduca May 2014 #201

trollery: anything you disagree with bigtree May 2014 #203

I am not sure the repsonse meant this, but. DonCoquixote May 2014 #48

Indeed...I await the explanation. nt msanthrope May 2014 #66

"I am not saying that the person did this, merely that the choice of words could cause issues." woo me with science May 2014 #85

+1 Marr May 2014 #95

+1000 Raksha May 2014 #107

+100000 Phlem May 2014 #132

alright look, if I'd have known I caused a stink here I'd have come back sooner bigtree May 2014 #143

+1 ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #199

On today's DU, even "etc." is taken as a terrible slur MannyGoldstein May 2014 #149

Wow. woo me with science May 2014 #162

One of my shadows MannyGoldstein May 2014 #163

It's an ugly job being done, woo me with science May 2014 #168

Manny I am indeed honored that you keep linking my posts! sheshe2 May 2014 #165

He had a thousand other words to say that DonCoquixote May 2014 #150

There was nothing wrong with the words that were used. woo me with science May 2014 #157

Do you NOT see it a problem in ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #200

Oh, I see a problem all right. woo me with science May 2014 #216

And what would that be ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #217

feigning offense bobduca May 2014 #176

I'm not personally offended, so, your little crack falls flat bigtree May 2014 #181

oh and he's a mindreader too! bobduca May 2014 #182

attacking me personally for objecting is as good as defending the remark bigtree May 2014 #183

alert it bobduca May 2014 #184

ALERT! ALERT! bigtree May 2014 #185

there's mr roffle waffles bobduca May 2014 #186

man, have you got an axe . . . bigtree May 2014 #187

Smear merchant says what? bobduca May 2014 #188

now you're just being mean, duca bigtree May 2014 #192

I learned from you bobduca May 2014 #193

congratulations! bigtree May 2014 #194

Who "owns" this President? nt msanthrope May 2014 #65

What's your opinion? nm rhett o rick May 2014 #72

I'll wait until the poster I addressed answers me. nt msanthrope May 2014 #82

But of course. Questions are easy. My bet is on Penny Pritzker and the rhett o rick May 2014 #89

Indeed. nt woo me with science May 2014 #92

Of course you will. woo me with science May 2014 #91

That, is a good question. Some days it's a conundrum. n/t RKP5637 May 2014 #78

The same industries that purchase the GOP... Demo_Chris May 2014 #115

So you are saying that President Obama is "owned" by others? nt msanthrope May 2014 #119

Literally? No. He is not property. The term for this is metaphor... Demo_Chris May 2014 #120

I can see why you would back down and claim this was merely metaphor. nt msanthrope May 2014 #121

I think Juror 7 was confused. Comment indicates this should be 2-5. AtheistCrusader May 2014 #126

Do you have the comments of the alerter? nt msanthrope May 2014 #127

Yes. AtheistCrusader May 2014 #130

I'm being alert stalked, so I'm not surprised that posts like this are being alterted on. It msanthrope May 2014 #131

I appreciate that juries are taking into account AtheistCrusader May 2014 #134

"Please send a message that this kind of behavior is unwelcome on DU." Number23 May 2014 #170

Whoever it was needs to chill. Msanthrope and I were having a civil discussion. nt Demo_Chris May 2014 #133

I appreciate that. nt msanthrope May 2014 #161

I read it as metaphor. Let's not digress from or denigrate the spirit of the post. ancianita May 2014 #146

An offensive and inflamatory metaphor ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #219

sorry the president's election and reelection so upsets you arely staircase May 2014 #118

Manny, if your other thread is any indication....you want a dictator, not a President Cali_Democrat May 2014 #3

Does Congress have the right to act MannyGoldstein May 2014 #5

Congress can impeach SCOTUS justices, Progressive dog May 2014 #9

Do Presidents ever work in concert with Congress? MannyGoldstein May 2014 #12

Sure. As a good example, President Obama passed a massive health care overhaul Recursion May 2014 #15

They wouldn't even pack the court for FDR, Progressive dog May 2014 #16

Did FDR's Justices have flaming conflicts of interest? nt MannyGoldstein May 2014 #18

They had ties to RW groups opposed to FDR's program, Progressive dog May 2014 #19

Being a Republican Justice is not the same as deciding cases that involve your wife's organization. merrily May 2014 #54

So you are saying that if judges have a wife who belongs to Progressive dog May 2014 #158

Not sure what you mean. FDR faced a conservative court when he took over. merrily May 2014 #53

"end run the Constitution" QC May 2014 #75

They are not RW talking points, there is no reason for Progressive dog May 2014 #156

You need two thirds of the senate to remove a justice. hrmjustin May 2014 #17

You also need a majority of the house to impeach, but so what? merrily May 2014 #56

Back during the stimulus debate, one person here declared, QC May 2014 #105

Actually, FDR did succeed. merrily May 2014 #29

Another superb post from you. woo me with science May 2014 #45

Wow. Thank you! merrily May 2014 #52

Thanks for the history lesson! Just what the thread needed. Scuba May 2014 #57

If that isn't sarcasm, you're welcome. I didn't intend to be giving a history lesson, though, merrily May 2014 #60

Nope, sincere. Scuba May 2014 #62

Excellent post. QC May 2014 #68

Thanks for the compliment and for welcoming reality. merrily May 2014 #69

Not very many, really. QC May 2014 #76

When bullies know you're coming for them MannyGoldstein May 2014 #96

Roosevelt had no power whatsoever to increase the court size. former9thward May 2014 #102

If you read my post, you apparently did not get understand the point. merrily May 2014 #123

The Supreme Court has expanded with the number of circuit courts... Hippo_Tron May 2014 #195

The danger is in those that blindly follow the status quo that is literally killing rhett o rick May 2014 #73

This one did at least mention Congress treestar May 2014 #99

No. I'd prefer a president with an even keel taught_me_patience May 2014 #6

Sounds like our last 30 yrs of Dems............. alittlelark May 2014 #23

We have that, don't we? Cleita May 2014 #28

LOL, Carroll Quigley, is that you? merrily May 2014 #30

We sure as hell need one. woo me with science May 2014 #7

Manny, Manny, Manny ... 1000words May 2014 #11

Sure. Now, what does that mean, in concrete terms? Recursion May 2014 #13

Affordable education that doesn't make indentured servants of students, paying off merrily May 2014 #31

That's a goal. what's the policy? Recursion May 2014 #38

No, it's not rocket science. We've done most of those things in the past, then we undid them. merrily May 2014 #40

2008-2010 was the most productive Congress in decades Recursion May 2014 #43

Where did I say anyone gave up? merrily May 2014 #59

How about an actual choice that can be debated by the 99 percent? Armstead May 2014 #88

Exactly. treestar May 2014 #101

We should already have a 99:1 chance Progressive dog May 2014 #14

Do we? How much of a role did you play in deciding the primary candidates in 2008--or in deciding merrily May 2014 #42

If we'd won 99:1 or even 2:1 Progressive dog May 2014 #174

I'd rather see the so-called 99% organizing to fight like hell for what it finds important struggle4progress May 2014 #20

The leader will follow if he isn't bought out. Unfortunately, most of the leadership of the JDPriestly May 2014 #24

Sounds good, but electing better people is part of that fight. merrily May 2014 #32

Strange you say that... Scootaloo May 2014 #152

Damn, you're good. nt MannyGoldstein May 2014 #154

I was interested in Occupy! for a while in the Fall 2011 and made a limited effort struggle4progress May 2014 #155

Occupy was perfect, I think. MannyGoldstein May 2014 #160

The right words at the right time..... alittlelark May 2014 #21

I'm with you, Manny. Thanks for posting this. JDPriestly May 2014 #22

DC. Bought and paid for by the 1%. Good luck ever getting anyone even remotely interested in the 99% blkmusclmachine May 2014 #25

Yes I do. NealK May 2014 #26

Well, how do we convince the uninformed to stop voting against their own Cleita May 2014 #27

We need better candidates, less blind partisanship on the part of Democratic and merrily May 2014 #34

Step one is stopping smug crap like that Recursion May 2014 #41

"" Republicans vote for their interests" this is a load of crap unless by "intrests" you mean leftyohiolib May 2014 #71

You only know what is good for leftyohiolib Puzzledtraveller May 2014 #77

^ That (nt) Recursion May 2014 #80

well i respectfully disagree. things that are good for leftyohiolib arent good for only him. leftyohiolib May 2014 #110

Yep I agree. Phlem May 2014 #139

I agree Recursion Puzzledtraveller May 2014 #74

No one is talking about better than you. We are talking about real ignorance Cleita May 2014 #97

this... nt leftyohiolib May 2014 #111

I disagree with this. DanTex May 2014 #125

The problem is when they vote against gay marriage, abortion and for guns, Cleita May 2014 #137

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman MattSh May 2014 #47

+1000000000 Phlem May 2014 #141

Right you are. Republic politicians and Faux News have them chasing imaginary social GoneFishin May 2014 #61

I'd like to answer that. Le Taz Hot May 2014 #81

I hope she runs and will be able to cut through the poo that will be Cleita May 2014 #98

maybe start by getting his/their back. certainot May 2014 #33

I thought politicians were supposed to have our back. merrily May 2014 #35

the other hilarious part is where the left expects a black man to march into the certainot May 2014 #46

He ran to march into that house, with billionaire money, so what's your point? merrily May 2014 #49

warren as president would have very similar obstruction, based in alternate reality certainot May 2014 #108

Well maybe if Clinton hadn't given the airwaves to Clear Channel you might have a point Armstead May 2014 #84

catch 22. the biggest force pushing the democratic party and it's representatives right certainot May 2014 #106

I think you ouht to reconsider what you term "the left" Armstead May 2014 #116

i agree. i'm talking about democracy-loving americans in general- their organizations and the certainot May 2014 #129

I basically agree with you about the problem..And I'd add Fux News to the mix Armstead May 2014 #167

but rw radio has given them the means. and rw radio is not a market driven dominance. certainot May 2014 #169

Left radio is a failure because talk radio is for idiots bobduca May 2014 #197

hey liberal, your sister is a whore, your brother a thief, and your ideas are treasonous certainot May 2014 #204

I listened to left talk radio bobduca May 2014 #205

for a lot of working people it's the only time they can get current events and politics certainot May 2014 #207

You make a valid point bobduca May 2014 #208

glad you asked- here are a few suggestions- the main thing is to get in their face certainot May 2014 #212

i think the best way to fix the problem is get college sports out of rw radio- it wouldn't survive certainot May 2014 #213

hey liberal, your sister is a whore, your brother a thief, and your ideas are treasonous certainot May 2014 #206

the critical move allowing it to be used as an overt propaganda op was killing the fairness doc certainot May 2014 #211

Because we are millions of people and the president is one person we elected treestar May 2014 #100

good way to put it certainot May 2014 #109

No one expects him to have the backs of millions of individuals but the backs of Americans merrily May 2014 #122

"I thought politicians were supposed to have our back". we're supposed to have each other's leftyohiolib May 2014 #112

Doing this will be hard because PatrickforO May 2014 #36

Americans are not apathetic. They are stupid. underthematrix May 2014 #67

I can agree with much of what you posted. Maedhros May 2014 #135

and local planners nadinbrzezinski May 2014 #180

Sanders / Warren or Warren / Sanders. Initech May 2014 #37

No and no. DeSwiss May 2014 #39

If we continue on our present course, I fear complete collapse is the end result. Maedhros May 2014 #136

Well we had a Warren Court in the 60's. I daresay we need to court Warren for 2016. Fearless May 2014 #44

Clever. merrily May 2014 #50

Elizabeth Warren For President cantbeserious May 2014 #51

Yes! ananda May 2014 #55

Thank you Manny, you old dictator lover. Scuba May 2014 #58

I posted on Tuesday. MannyGoldstein May 2014 #70

How about one that stops making appointments using the rightwingers' short list. GoneFishin May 2014 #63

And when we get that person, let's not cut them off at the knees when things don't change overnight. baldguy May 2014 #64

As long as they don't do things like appoint Industry Lobbyists to regulate their industries Armstead May 2014 #83

We live in a world where the person who dreamed up the CFPB couldn't be confirmed to head it. baldguy May 2014 #90

And your point is...? Armstead May 2014 #94

The point is desperately wishing for fantasies to come true doesn't change the world baldguy May 2014 #113

Well I'm sorry. I just don't happen to think common sense and common decency have to... Armstead May 2014 #114

They're only unattainable if you refuse to begin somewhere. baldguy May 2014 #124

Start? Instant gratification? Armstead May 2014 #142

I'm sorry that you feel insulted when somebody points out the realities of the situation on the baldguy May 2014 #159

Bingo...another cliche again "Point out realities on the ground" Armstead May 2014 #166

You're worried about cliche's? Your whole argument is a cliche. baldguy May 2014 #171

And I thought I was cynical...Your defeatism makes me feel like Polyanna Armstead May 2014 #173

We write her, we blog for her, Le Taz Hot May 2014 #79

I want a president who refuses to sign a health care bill that does not include leeroysphitz May 2014 #86

A President who would go down in flames, then. randome May 2014 #93

You don't know that. n/t leeroysphitz May 2014 #104

I want a President who ProSense May 2014 #87

Nope. I'm for HILLARY! nt Romulox May 2014 #103

I'd prefer a parliamentary system where the PM can be ousted when he screws up. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #117

The United States is running DemocraticGovernment 1.0. Maedhros May 2014 #138

The patches aren't doing the job..time for an overhaul. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #148

Proportional representation has its own advantages and drawbacks, Maedhros May 2014 #151

I'd prefer we get rid of the capitalism BUT TBF May 2014 #128

I voted in 2008 for one who said he would do so n2doc May 2014 #140

K&R a brazzillion! Enthusiast May 2014 #144

We have to get moderates to show up in mid-term elections. Rex May 2014 #145

Yes. But without the power to keep money out of politics, I don't see how we can figure it out. ancianita May 2014 #147

While I am with you 100%, there are too many Democrats SomethingFishy May 2014 #153

Yes! That's why I voted for Kucinich. flvegan May 2014 #164

Fights? Yes. Hell? Maybe not. Hillary scares the right, because she is a fighter. McCamy Taylor May 2014 #172

*SNORT* No triangulation... *SNORT* nadinbrzezinski May 2014 #175

Did I accidentally take bad acid? MannyGoldstein May 2014 #177

Do not worry, I have been taking bad acid for the last few. nadinbrzezinski May 2014 #179

We have settled for a mediocre 840high May 2014 #178

UNREC brooklynite May 2014 #189

We've done it your way for three decades MannyGoldstein May 2014 #196

I have no objection... brooklynite May 2014 #214

The president needs to place 99% of his time fighting for the 99%. Jefferson23 May 2014 #190

And devote the othe 1% of his time to ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #202

The math is not fuzzy, the emphasis overall needs to be protecting we the people Jefferson23 May 2014 #215

I'm pointing out that the POTUS is/should be concerned with ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #218

Considering the ever increasing influence Jefferson23 May 2014 #220

Okay, and I largely agree ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #221

The issues we face with regards to equal opportunity have much to do with the economy and Jefferson23 May 2014 #222

IMO, No they don't ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #223

Equality is tied to several aspects, education and a healthy economy and legislation, no? Jefferson23 May 2014 #224

No, It's not ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #225

Then all the better to have a summit on race relations, and this population should be Jefferson23 May 2014 #226

Isn't that "Do not go gentle into that good night"? eridani May 2014 #209

ooops. MannyGoldstein May 2014 #210