Bad Mr. Obama Was Very Very Mean to the Poor Poor Supreme Court (So Was FDR)

[kpete]

Bad Mr. Obama Was Very Very Mean to the Poor Poor Supreme Court

JB

Randy Barnett http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Randy_Barnett_79413362-DD20-46A2-A092-D0579CC7D13F.html is shocked, shocked that Obama would spend a paragraph of his State of the Union Address criticizing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United. I suspect that reading Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1937 State of the Union Address would probably make his head explode.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15336

The statute of N.R.A. the National Recovery Act has been outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The problems have not. They are still with us.

That decent conditions and adequate pay for labor, and just return for agriculture, can be secured through parallel and simultaneous action by forty-eight States is a proven impossibility. It is equally impossible to obtain curbs on monopoly, unfair trade practices and speculation by State action alone. There are those who, sincerely or insincerely, still cling to State action as a theoretical hope. But experience with actualities makes it clear that Federal laws supplementing State laws are needed to help solve the problems which result from modern invention applied in an industrialized Nation which conducts its business with scant regard to State lines.

..............

The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good.

The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government.

more:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/01/bad-mr-obama-was-very-very-mean-to-poor.html

[lapfog_1]

1. One of the things that Obama should have done

While we had 60 seats (though it's highly doubtful that 60 would have voted for this), he should have taken a page from the FDR playbook and increased the number of SCOTUSes to 11 from 9, and rammed through 2 more Dems along with Sotamayor.

[arthritisR_US]

4. interesting. n/t

[lapfog_1]

5. Didn't work for FDR, but then SCOTUS at that time wasn't actively trying

to destroy our democracy.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[arthritisR_US]

12. they sure do! I like your thinking. n/t

[onenote]

15. and desperate measures that result in disaster will help how?

And there is absolutely no question that any attempt to pack the court a la FDR would be an absolute and complete disaster.

[arthritisR_US]

17. don't burst my balloon...I can dream if I want to ;-) n/'t

[onenote]

7. that page from FDR's play book was not successful

And it would have been horribly unsuccessful if Obama had tried it.

[lapfog_1]

8. Yes, I know.

But it was would have been worth a shot.

As it is, come next election, we kiss the remnants of equal representation goodbye.

[onenote]

13. Well, since it was a complete bust, saying it would be worth a shot "if" FDR had been successful

is pretty meaningless.

While everyone knew that FDR's plan was intended to change the substantive outcome of the decisions the court was reaching, the stated rationale for the plan was ostensibly neutral -- to ease the burden on aging justices and to address the fact that FDR had not had the opportunity to name a SCOTUS Justice during his first term in office. One of the things that undermined FDR's plan (apart from the fact everyone knew what he was really trying to do) was that shortly after he came up with the plan a seat opened on the court and he got a chance to fill it. Obama, of course, already has had one opportunity to fill a seat on the court.

Ultimately, FDR's plan was rejected by a vote of 70-20. To put the scale of that defeat into some perspective: the Democrats controlled 76 seats in the Senate at the time (and the Repubs had fewer than 20). It was a complete disaster and,as such, it will forever serve as a practical bar from any President trying a similar thing.

[Chulanowa]

2. Hell, that's nothing

Andrew "Crazy Motherfucker" Jackson just kept adding justices to the court until he got what he wanted.

[Sanity Claws]

6. Jackson refused to enforce at least Supreme Court ruling

He just ignored it -- said the Supreme Court can enforce its own rulings.

However, I never heard that he added justices to the court. I thought there were always 9.

[onenote]

10. Jackson did no such thing

Not sure where you get your history from, but the claim that Jackson "kept adding justices to the court until he got what he wanted" is pure fiction

Jackson appointed 6 justices in seven years. The first five all succeeded sitting justices and their appointment did not change the size of the court (which was seven at the time).

Congress passed legislation in 1836 to expand the court from 7 to 9. Jackson filled one of those seats, doing so on his last day in office. That's it. (To clarify: Jackson proposed names to fill both seats on his last day in office, but one of the nominees declined the nomination and that seat was filled by a nominee named by Jackson's successor).

The size of the court started out at 6, grew to 7, then 9, and evenutally 10. After it hit 10, Congress passed legislation that would have reduced the court (through attrition) back to 7. But before the court shrank to 7, Congress (in 1869) passed a new law that set the number at 9, which is where it has been ever since. FDR's plan would have allowed the court to grow to as many as 15 Justices (with a new Justice added for every justice that reached the age of 70 years, six months without retiring). Of course, FDR's plan was a total bust.

[Sanity Claws]

11. I think he's confused too

Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, which concerned the rights of Cherokees.
That is the only problem I know of him with the Supremes.

[onenote]

14. Right. That was where Jackson famously was said to have stated:

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

It should be kept in mind that Jackson is hardly the role model one wants for dealing with the SCOTUS. He hated Marshall, who was a historic justice, and when Marshall died, Jackson replaced him with Taney, a man almost universally recognized as the worst CJ in US history.

[Chulanowa]

16. I think I was confused, too

A definite SPAM moment for my brain, I'm afraid

[Jamastiene]

3. Awwwww, poor baby Alito. Big Bad Obama picking on him. Awwwww.

Look at that pout. zOMG, :rofl:

[Imagevision]

9. The Surpreme Judges want big business to be able to control elections,- Cheney, "So?"