NYT’s: Democrat’s Should Stack The Supreme Court So Liberals Get Better Rulings
Why not, FDR and other tried this for political gain! Jean Edward Smith wrote “Stacking the Court.”
If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.
As Mark points out:
How’s that for undermining the rule of law? And since when are “popular standards” the measure by which the Supreme Court is to make its judgements?
My take? Every example given was a political scheme and not to make the rule of law the number one priority.
July 26, 2007 - 06:54 AM on July 26th, 2007
Democrats are not about the rule of law but the rule of the Democrat Mob.
July 26, 2007 - 08:03 AM on July 26th, 2007
I’ve repeatedly said that George Bush’s greatest legacy will be the appointment of his justices, especially those of the Supreme Court. It is the most positive thing he has done for the country.
July 26, 2007 - 08:05 AM on July 26th, 2007
Oh, this is what gets me:
“If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values…”
No, they are upholding popular values no “thumbing their noses” at them. With that said, the Supreme Court ISN”T about popular values but about the rule of Constitutional Law. Popularity has nothing to do with it, otherwise there would be no civil rights movement or Roe v. Wade as those were extremely unpopular rulings at their time.
July 26, 2007 - 12:15 PM on July 26th, 2007
To the DemoKrites, the Konstitution is like a faded, old blue dress…they’ll decide what it means on a situational basis.
July 26, 2007 - 12:51 PM on July 26th, 2007
Leave it to aliberal rag like the NYTs who wants our courts patterned after the notorious 9th curcutt court
July 26, 2007 - 05:16 PM on July 26th, 2007
Yes of course the Democratic leadership should do everything it can to assure the Supreme Court is a progressive one! In order to carry out the Progressive agenda, it is absolutely necessary that the SC take a leadership role! As someone said earlier, the Constitution is hopelesly out of date. It was written for another time, not for today’s new requirements!
The Congresional Democratic leadership, while very capable and dedicated, is busy trying to undo the damage caused i ht elast 7 years and does not have the time to focus on other issues. So it is up to the SC to that important work, and we must make sure no more obstructionists are appointed!
July 27, 2007 - 05:56 AM on July 27th, 2007
Progressive, you are an idiot who doesn’t revere the rule of law. What if a group just decides to ride into San Francisco and take over?
Think about it because this is what you are saying for the US via your comments about hijacking the Supreme Court.
July 27, 2007 - 07:46 AM on July 27th, 2007
6. Oh my god its no wonder this country is headed for hell via Islam.
July 27, 2007 - 03:05 PM on July 27th, 2007
Post #6 yet more evidence that Liberalism is a form of mental illness…