We don't need a constitutional amendment and we don't need impeachment

[jgraz]

Kill the filibuster and nominate two more Supreme Court justices TOMORROW.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scarletwoman]

2. Care to explain? I'm assuming that you're referring to some little-known fact that the SCOTUS

isn't limited to nine justices, but I'd like to know a little more if this is actually the case.

[eleny]

3. FDR tried it but was stopped by Congress - Dems included

[backscatter712]

38. If Congress had the nads to do it, they can simply pass a law increasing the size of SCOTUS to 11.

FDR got smacked down because he tried to increase the size of the Supreme Court unilaterally.

Normal procedure is for Congress to pass a law to change the size of the Supreme Court. That's how it's supposed to be done.

And aside from political will (in woefully short supply,) there's nothing preventing Congress from doing that.

[jgraz]

24. There is no constitutional limit on the number of justices the SCOTUS can have.

Article III of the Constitution authorizes Congress to set the number.

[Codeine]

4. As FDR discovered

that requires legislation. Appointing more justices takes more than a wave of a wand.

Besides, you really want the next Repuke adding even more folks in turn? You want a Puke Congress without the ability to filibuster?

[jgraz]

7. I don't want a Republican Congress ever again

Which would happen if we had real leaders in the national Democratic party.

[Codeine]

12. You don't grasp history much, eh?

The electorate swings; politics is a pendulum. There will always be times your party rules, and times it becomes the opposition. The Repukes thought they had a permanent majority once too -- they found out otherwise.

[jgraz]

22. Sooo tired of you DLC types pining for the next Repuke takeover.

You don't sound intelligent, you don't sound pragmatic. You sound like a typical center-right wuss.

[Codeine]

26. Because I understand we won't be in charge forever?

that's not pining for a Puke takeover, that's just reality.

[jgraz]

29. It's the attitude of someone who can't think outside of the current political box

We not only can beat the Republicans, we can beat the ideas that make people Republicans. The majority of the country is to the left of Washington -- left of most Democrats. The way you enact those ideals is not by playing nice and planning for defeat.

[scheming daemons]

37. There is no such thing as a "permanent majority" in politics.. surely you can't be this naive

The very ACT of stacking the court will guarantee the GOP takes over congress and Obama becomes a one-termer.

You have an amazing inability to read the electorate. Almost every national election is decided by the 20% of the populace that swings between left and right based on the mood of the day.

And with the conservatives controlling the media that these people are exposed to, you can bet your ass that stacking the court will become the "Monica Lewinsky" of 2010... wall to wall coverage, almost all of it negatively presented.


But even if you are right and Obama gets away with stacking the court and gets re-elected.... are you so naive to believe that Democrats will NEVER AGAIN lose another presidential election?


Jeezus, you're off your rocker. Even FDR/Truman only lasted 20 years. A time will come when a Republican is President again.

Attempting to "stack the court" makes that time nearer, not farther away.


You have no grasp of history. FDR's attempt to stack the court cost the Democrats dozens of seats in congress in 1938 and made the 1940 election dangerously close. And that was a President in a much better position than Obama and the Dems are now. FDR didn't have a corporate-controlled media working for his defeat.

[jgraz]

40. Jeezuz, you're afraid of any marginally unconventional ideas.

Why is that?

[scheming daemons]

42. Your "idea" creates an even WORSE situation

Think your "idea" completely through.

Obama adds two judges. Court is now 6-5 liberal.

At some point in the future... and you're a complete idiot if you think otherwise... there will be another Republican President.


That President adds two judges. Court is now 7-6 conservative.


Back to square one.


Only now..... because of corporate control of everything... while there might be a future Democratic president, there won't ever be another LIBERAL president.


Summary:

A. Your "idea" isn't unconventional. It's been tried. It was a disaster. The "idea" has a track record to look at.

B. Your "idea", if implemented... if even ATTEMPTED to be implemented... makes the situation worse, and sooner.

C. Passing a Constitutional Amendment is a piece of cake compared to your "idea". (Which isn't really yours, by the way... it's been floated by all sorts of nutcases that have no ability to think things through).

[jgraz]

44. You might want to dial down the hysteria a bit. Maybe you'll learn something.

I don't think that Obama should literally appoint two justices tomorrow. But he should consider a direct assault on the court -- especially the two lying liars that Bush appointed.

As in most things political, the Republicans had the right idea. They set many of their most radical ideas in motion before 1980. And they just kept hammering away, shifting the debate, tugging at the idealogical center until they finally got their way. In fact, they got their way so completely that most of their worst ideas were implemented under a Democratic president.

If we EVER want to shift back from Reaganism, we need to start thinking radically. We may not be able to act on everything at once, but we should start entertaining ideas that have the potential for serious change. And we should start talking about them without the weasel-worded, we're-too-scared-to-actually-do-anything attitude that's been the hallmark of the Democrats for 30 years.

Sure, something like this could be a disaster if done wrong (true of anything). But even if it's *never* done, it's the kind of thing that needs to be discussed. Being scared of bold moves is what got Democrats into this mess. It's what's steering Obama toward a 2012 defeat.

For fuck's sake, it's a thread on an internet message board. Are you that tied to conventional thinking that you can't even tolerate a simple discussion of the proposal?

[scheming daemons]

48. You're correct about one thing: Bold ideas and moves are necessary

But not this abortion of an idea.



The first move, *I* think, is for Obama to devote his ENTIRE State-of-the-Union address next Wednesday to frame this issue in a way that the general public will understand.

Use the unfettered 60 to 90 minutes he has in front of tens of millions of Americans to explain to them why this ruling is so damaging to the Republic.

He was a Constitutional Law Professor, for chrissakes... and giving speeches is his specialty. He could turn his SOTU into a "fireside chat" about how our democracy is in danger.

It would dominate discussions for days... kicking all of the Massachusetts-HealthCare-etcetera bullshit off the news.


It would be unconventional and would *BEGIN* the groundswell that is needed to build up momentum for a constitutional amendment.

In his speech, for added effect, Obama should say this:

"Look... I know how powerful these interests are that we're up against. The very act of me taking them on in this way probably guarantees that I'll be a one-term President. But I pledge to spend the next three years working to save this Republic. None of my other priorities matter if this judicial decision is able to stand."


That's *MY* unconventional idea....


Obama could become Bullworth, on a Presidential scale.... but hopefully without the tragic ending.

[jgraz]

50. Not a bad first move -- especially if he rolls in the bankster bonuses.

It's a nice fantasy to think of Obama turning into an anti-corporate bulldog. Unfortunately, I think both of our ideas have an equal chance of becoming reality.

[scheming daemons]

54. I think you're mistaken about Obama and corporations

Yes, he's been too timid up until now.


But he's not a corporatist... I'll never be convinced of that. Not with his anti-bank rhetoric even today.


But read Obama's statement on the SCOTUS ruling today. He gets it. He realizes that this ruling could mean the end of the Democratic Party in VERY short order... and the end of representative democracy shortly thereafter.


Now, it's personal. Now, his very political survival and historical legacy is at stake.


The Supreme Court just basically put an end to the Democrats ruling congress in November. You don't think the corporations can spend enough to gain 10 GOP seats in the Senate? And then two years after that, Obama is toast after he gets outspent 100 to 1, no matter what he raises.


When your own "life" is on the line, it's amazing how that focuses the mind.

[jgraz]

57. One good thing about this disagreement re: Obama's corporatism

We're going to have an answer on it very soon. Nothing would make me happier than losing this argument.

[Codeine]

49. That's just it; we're discussing it.

You just don't like that we're disagreeing with it. It's silliness. It's myopic. It's naive.

You don't want discussion, you want people to tell you it is a wonderful notion -- it isn't.

[jgraz]

51. No, I don't like that you're acting like a putz.

You can disagree with someone without being a condescending tool. You should try it sometime.

[Codeine]

53. It was your dumb idea.

Cope with the reaction.

[jgraz]

60. That's OK, I figured out what the problem is

"Conflict simulation wargames, science fiction"

No, really. I get it. Say Hi to Mom from me. :rofl:

[Codeine]

62. Nice.

That actually wasn't bad. :hi:

[omega minimo]

56. Corporations in charge now

[verges]

59. And with this new ruling....

they just might pull it off!!

[laughingliberal]

31. Don't want the next Republican adding more justices but the filibuster?

We never used it when we were in the minority. We never stopped the most horrible of bills with it and we didn't keep Roberts and Alito off the court. I say kill the damned thing now while we still have a year to get some laws passed.

[scheming daemons]

5. And then Obama gets voted out in 2012.. and the Repukes add two MORE justices

Down this road lies madness, jgraz.


FDR tried this... almost cost him his Presidency in 1940 and cost him big losses in congress in 1938.


If we abolish the filibuster and grow the supreme court to 11.... then the next Republican President will increase it to 13. What would stop him?

[Codeine]

6. They really don't think this shit through.

Just thrashing about for an answer that doesn't involve us working hard, educating the electorate, and selling our ideas even in the face of corporate money.

[jgraz]

9. It's an internet discussion board. Lighten the fuck up.

Not everything has to be a senior term paper. It's an idea that's been discussed from time to time. We've had nine justices for a while, it might be time to expand it.

[Codeine]

10. It's a stupid idea that would be well-nigh impossible to implement

and to imply that it can be done by fiat bespeaks ignorance.

[jgraz]

20. Your reaction bespeaks intellectual insecurity

Instead of name calling, perhaps you can offer some concrete suggestions? Or would that be too much to expect from you?

[tmyers09]

13. And when the corporations brainwash the electorate and squelch opposing views?

Democracy's headstone has been engraved and its plot has been dug. The question now is, how do we stop the lowering of the casket?

[treestar]

15. If you look at voters as just entities to be brainwashed how are

you better than the republicans?

You're saying they are helpless.

[Codeine]

17. "Brainwashed." jesus fuck.

And you wonder why people view our party as elitist and arrogant. :puke:

If we can't sell out ideas then we don't deserve to have control. I believe we can. If you've given up then please get outta the way so we can work.

[treestar]

16. They sell the voters short

They paint the voters as helpless sheep who will vote the way the corporate ads tell them too.

[tmyers09]

35. You gonna deny it?

Not just the voters, the majority of the citizens. The people just don't give a shit. What's the latest iPhone model, or When's the next season of American Idol? They fucking moved the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS SO AS TO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE SHOW LOST.

[dgibby]

8. After the Court ruling today, I seriously doubt there'll ever be

another Dem President, Senate, or House.

[Codeine]

11. Oh god.

Give me a break. If our ideas are any fucking good then we can sell them regardless of the corporate cash.

If we can't then we don't really fucking deserve it.

[jgraz]

27. Wow, talk about "bespeaking ignorance"

Have you been paying attention for the last, um ...ever? If the guys with the best ideas won, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess.

Jesus, what country to you actually live in?

[Codeine]

28. The guys with the best ideas

are in charge. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground, right? :shrug:

[jgraz]

30. So... you've been in a coma for the past 8 years?

If so, I have some bad news for you.

[laughingliberal]

33. That was my thought. We've always had the best ideas

Communication has been our problem and it just got a whole lot harder.

[Common Sense Party]

25. In case you didn't notice it, corporations give our pols mucho $$$, too

It's not just a one-way street.

[defendandprotect]

14. Good . .. I'd go for that -- !!! Also . . . RECALLS . . .

[Codeine]

18. Congress won't expand the SC

and there is no provision for recalling a Supreme Court Justice.

[defendandprotect]

32. Maybe not yet . . .

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

46. Yes. "Not yet" in the sense that it would require a constitutional amendment...

...which has no chance of passing.

[jgraz]

47. Recall would take an amendment. An expanded court would not.

All you'd need is a majority vote in both houses.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. Yes, that worked so very well last time it was attempted. n/t

[jgraz]

58. It was attempted badly and for the wrong reasons.

The real problem is, it requires Democrats with spine.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

61. How are the reasons any different now?

And for that matter, what in God's name makes you think it would be done *well* this time?

[jgraz]

63. Hey, we're talking about what *should* be done, not what will be done

There's no way the Democrats will have the spine or political competence to pull off something like this. But it's more possible now than back when FDR did it.

FDR tried to stack the Court to push through his own legislation, some of which was pretty poorly written. This could be framed as a remedy for the lies told by Roberts and Alito and as a way to restore judicial restraint to a reactionary court. Hell, after today you could sell this as a way to save democracy.

Of course, it would take nerve and political acumen to pull off. Something the Democrats sorely lack.

[defendandprotect]

52. This is perhaps even a more unpopular decision than 2000 . . .

everyone is threatened by it -- which may inspire the Congress . . . EVENTUALLY???

[jgraz]

34. Not if we're afraid to discuss it.

Roberts lied during his confirmation about stare decisis. So did Alito. Obama can build a case that we need to balance the radicals who have lied their way onto the court.

[Truth2Tell]

19. rec'd back to zero.

outside the box... don't ever think any different jgraz. :hi:

[jgraz]

23. If we're considering drastic action, we should consider this as well

No matter what the pathetic Rahmbaggers have to say about it.

[canetoad]

39. I've read all your posts in this thread

and they display no continuity or logic.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

43. Welcome to jgraz's world

For weeks, he was "Kill the bill!"

Then.. when the bill is in jeopardy following the Mass. election... he becomes "why won't Obama fight for the bill?"


Now... he proposes an idea that actually SPEEDS UP the arrival of complete corporate control of America.

[jgraz]

45. Once again, you betray your inability to deal with nuance.

Perhaps you should consider turning off the teevee and picking up a book once in a while. Learn how to deal with complex ideas and you might embarrass yourself less often.

[robo50]

21. Sound reasonable. n'/t

[Angry Dragon]

36. K&R

We need to work together to regain this country for everyone, even if it helps the republicans instead of fighting among ourselves