Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:14 AM Jun 2018

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Is this the solution? Add more Justices to SCOTUS?

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan&quot [2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months.

In the Judiciary Act of 1869 Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of the Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan".[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

Once the Democrats get back into full power of the govt, why can't they simply add more justices to the SCOTUS to counter the bullshit that McConnell and Trump pulled off?
27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Is this the solution? Add more Justices to SCOTUS? (Original Post) Yavin4 Jun 2018 OP
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. dalton99a Jun 2018 #1
its possible, starts the process a REPUBLICAN president could follow too, I rather see "impeachment" beachbum bob Jun 2018 #2
Given the Increase in the U.S. Population Since 1837, This Proposal Makes Sense dlk Jun 2018 #3
This options needs to be on the table standingtall Jun 2018 #4
Yes. shanny Jun 2018 #5
No. If we can stuff the SC, so can the GOP. marble falls Jun 2018 #6
Why not? Please explain. Yavin4 Jun 2018 #7
They can wait for their turn. One day without the fascist court would be better than zero. dalton99a Jun 2018 #8
And that gives us even more incentive to build and hold power Yavin4 Jun 2018 #10
republicans are already stuffing the supreme court by other means standingtall Jun 2018 #11
FDR's Court packing plan was a political disaster onenote Jun 2018 #9
We will not be risking history repeating itself standingtall Jun 2018 #12
+1. Repeal the tax scam and implement Medicare for All while we're at it dalton99a Jun 2018 #13
Yep dont forget overturn citizens united standingtall Jun 2018 #14
Absolutely dalton99a Jun 2018 #15
FDR could afford to lose 72 seats and still have a majority onenote Jun 2018 #16
Extremely unlikely that we will lose 72 seats standingtall Jun 2018 #18
Exactly. Take and use power for the good. Yavin4 Jun 2018 #21
Shall we pass that idea along to the Republican Party... brooklynite Jun 2018 #17
One, they don't need to do it because they have the SCOTUS that they want Yavin4 Jun 2018 #19
No they wont because they dont need to standingtall Jun 2018 #20
OR GaryCnf Jun 2018 #22
He could appoint Satan GaryCnf Jun 2018 #23
Wrong we do need to consider changing things standingtall Jun 2018 #24
Here's the problem with that analysis GaryCnf Jun 2018 #25
Of course we need to take back the congress and the Senate and the Presidency standingtall Jun 2018 #26
I don't want to give the impression GaryCnf Jun 2018 #27
 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
2. its possible, starts the process a REPUBLICAN president could follow too, I rather see "impeachment"
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:21 AM
Jun 2018

dlk

(11,439 posts)
3. Given the Increase in the U.S. Population Since 1837, This Proposal Makes Sense
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:24 AM
Jun 2018

Wouldn't more justices make court-packing more difficult?

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
4. This options needs to be on the table
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:28 AM
Jun 2018

at the very least as a last resort. We cannot treat this like some sacred cow that we dare not touch,because republicans have been using other tactics to stack the courts in their favor and we are on a path that the only way we are going to stop repukes from making power grabs using the supreme court is for us to get control over the supreme court.

 

shanny

(6,709 posts)
5. Yes.
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:28 AM
Jun 2018

Although I would just increase the bench from 9 to 13. Rs will holler like scalded cats but I doubt if the Ds will complain. Rs have been breaking rules and moving goalposts forever and eff me if I can figure out why we keep acquiescing.

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
7. Why not? Please explain.
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:35 AM
Jun 2018

Republicans break the law, legal precedence, collude with foreign powers, end filibusters, etc. to get what they want. How has playing by the rules helped the Dems?

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
10. And that gives us even more incentive to build and hold power
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:41 AM
Jun 2018

As it stands right now, the Republican party is thoroughly corrupt, dishonest, mean-spirited, and willing to collude with foreign governments to acquire power. They should but shut out from ever being in power.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
11. republicans are already stuffing the supreme court by other means
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:43 AM
Jun 2018

If we were to do this we could overturn all the garbage the right leaning supreme court has passed for the last 40 or 50 years. Sure republicans could get back the government and stack the supreme court in their favor again. We go through a few cycles of this and the country will be so fed up with it that there will be a will to fix it with a constitutional amendment. Such as term limits for supreme court justice or a 60 vote threshold for confirmation in the Senate and I think in the long run it would be a good thing.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
9. FDR's Court packing plan was a political disaster
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:39 AM
Jun 2018

FDR couldn't get it through Congress despite the fact that the Democrats had a unbelievable 3/4 majority in Congress, having just won 334 seats in the House and 74 in the Senate. And the bad taste in the public's mouth over the plan persisted, contributing to the Democrats losing 72 seats in the House in 1938.

You may want to risk history repeating itself, but its not a risk the Democrats in Congress are likely to take.

Think about it: if it was an easy thing to do and a good move politically, why wouldn't the Republicans do it now, while they have majorities in both Houses and control the White House?

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
12. We will not be risking history repeating itself
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 09:50 AM
Jun 2018

First off we do not have a 3/4 majority to lose to begin with. So it is worth taking the risk. We are in a completely different climate now. This can be done with a simple majority all it would require is for all democratic senators to stick together. The only reason why republicans haven't done it is they are afraid we will do it and once we do it we will be able to use the supreme court to ensure that we get through meaningful social programs that people will like making it harder for republicans to get elected.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
16. FDR could afford to lose 72 seats and still have a majority
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 10:05 AM
Jun 2018

We can't. If we try and fail and then lose control of the House and Senate in 2022, then what?

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
18. Extremely unlikely that we will lose 72 seats
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 10:13 AM
Jun 2018

In the 30's Democrats were at the ceiling so there was no place to go but down. However it wasn't that big of a political disaster took republicans almost 40 or 50 years to get back to the anything big business wants big business gets meme Eisenhower and even Nixon would be way to moderate for today's republican party plus Democrats did not lose their majority the congress until the 90's. The pressure FDR put on the supreme court forced them to give him more favorable decisions even though he failed to change it's makeup.

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
21. Exactly. Take and use power for the good.
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 10:16 AM
Jun 2018

It's simply not enough to scare people into voting for Democrats. You have to show them that once Dems take power life will get better for everyone.

brooklynite

(93,880 posts)
17. Shall we pass that idea along to the Republican Party...
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 10:07 AM
Jun 2018

...which could implement it with Conservative Justices tomorrow?

Yavin4

(35,357 posts)
19. One, they don't need to do it because they have the SCOTUS that they want
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 10:14 AM
Jun 2018

Two, we have to get away from doing things out of fear of Republican reaction. How we should think is, let's do things that improve the quality of life for everyone in this country and win power because of it.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
20. No they wont because they dont need to
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 10:15 AM
Jun 2018

they will just suspend they rules when it benefits them and when a Democrat is President use the same rules they suspended to protect themselves.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
22. OR
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 11:00 AM
Jun 2018

Because we have to control both houses of Congress and the presidency to accomplish this, we could try winning the presidency and even just the senate in 2020, allow nature in the form of the massive accumulation of fat tissue on Thomas's chest to follow nature's course, get some f'ing discipline in our Senate conference (are you listening blue dogs?) and put someone like Goodwin Liu instead of some appease the middle moderate in Thomas's place. Overnight not only is order restored but atrocities like capital punishment are eliminated.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
23. He could appoint Satan
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 11:03 AM
Jun 2018

And it would still be only a 5-4 court.

We don't need to change anything. We just need to win in 2020.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
24. Wrong we do need to consider changing things
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 11:31 AM
Jun 2018

Us winning in 2020 will not mean much if the republican minority decides to run to their majority on the supreme court to declare any policy we try implement unconstitutional. We passed the affordable care act with 60 votes in the Senate and republicans still ran to the supreme court to try and get it overturned. We got lucky that time the next time it will probably be different. What is to stop republicans from taking social security or medicare to the supreme court in the future? The court will only be 5-4 after republicans ram through their nominee before the election. I would not be so sure they don't get another one through before 2020. We are on the brink of losing everything due to republican munipulation of the supreme court time for us to consider taking some risk and go on the offensive.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
25. Here's the problem with that analysis
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 04:03 PM
Jun 2018

To change the number of justices we need both houses of Congress and the presidency. Now I concede that it is likely that if we take the Senate in 2000, we will maintain control over the House (which we better well win this fall) but it's not a sure thing. We're almost obligated to use our 2018 House win to shut down Trump cold which could affect 2020.

The Court is going to do what it is going to do over the next 2 years. No Dem appointee will retire and I know Ginsberg looks frail, but I have seen her in action first hand a couple of times over the past few years and she is not going down hill physically at least in my opinion.

Thomas, on the other hand, is visibly less healthy. Unless he dies or retires in the next two years, the 2020 winner will replace him.

Right now one of the few political weaknesses we have is that we have done more than our share of whining about how institutions which have existed for over a hundred years are suddenly "unfair" because we don't like how they worked out for us. This solution looks like more of the same and it's not a good look.

As GOAT POTUS Obama said a couple of days ago, it's time to quit moping.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
26. Of course we need to take back the congress and the Senate and the Presidency
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 04:36 PM
Jun 2018

I firmly expect if we win 2020 we will have all 3 wings. Taking congress only shuts down Trump legislatively for the next 2 years. We not only need to take back the Senate to shut down Trumps court packing, but we would also have to make sure that no conservative Democrat votes to confirm one of his rubber stamp for the right wings nominees, because the best case scenario is we only come away with a thin majority in the Senate after the midterm.


You can be sure if Thomas is ill he will retire before 2020 so Trump can replace him with a right wing judge who is about 40 years old. So even when we get back the Presidency under that scenario we will be stuck with a 5-4 rubber stamp for republicans right wing court for the next 30 or 40 years after Roe Vs Wade has been overturned and national right to work laws have been passed by this court it's going to be a tough sell for us to say to our Demographics yeah we lost those things and others, but stick with us and we might get them back for your grand kids.

This is not simply whining about how institutions have worked for us. Tell me one other time in our history where the institution of the Senate functioned in a way that it refused to even let a sitting President have a vote for his judicial nominee for the supreme court?

Democrats need stop being afraid of what looks bad or losing everything at once while republicans systematically take everything away from Democrats piece by piece until there is nothing left. Democrats better wake up and start fighting back or not one policy from Barrack Obama's administration will be left in place or any other Democratic President for that matter.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
27. I don't want to give the impression
Sat Jun 30, 2018, 04:43 PM
Jun 2018

I disagree that much. Your urgency is well warranted and I share it.

For absolutely sure we need to get serious the minute we take back control. You recognize that. Decorum is for losers.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Judicial Procedures R...