General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

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

Reply to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Wed May 21, 2014, 06:58 AM

May 2014

I doubt he appointed any conservatives, but I have not checked.

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