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

bluescribbler

(2,105 posts)
86. Nothing in the Constitution specifies the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Tue Feb 12, 2019, 01:34 PM
Feb 2019

#45' successor could nominate enough people to swing the court. It's not unprecedented. Granted, FDR's attempt failed, but the Court was much less obstructionist after that.

Nope. manor321 Feb 2019 #1
I guess my question is why should we limit ourselves to "normal legislative functioning" to Atticus Feb 2019 #6
Because government by fiat is insanity Codeine Feb 2019 #75
"Government by fiat"? No reasonably intelligent honest person could so characterize Atticus Feb 2019 #78
No, that's pretty much the precise definition Codeine Feb 2019 #81
You seem content to battle straw men so I will leave you to it. Have a good one. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #83
It's pretty clear what he is advocating dumbcat Feb 2019 #90
Hear, hear. Too many people--even here at DU--seem to think the old cliche is true-- First Speaker Feb 2019 #2
Because he is, unfortunately, legitimate. Codeine Feb 2019 #72
Only the Supreme Court could have power to do this if a suit came before them, but Liberty Belle Feb 2019 #3
So, the fact that an illegitimate POTUS ignored precedent, custom and decency to skew the SCOTUS Atticus Feb 2019 #11
They would have to recuse the Trump appointees since the ruling would effect them directly world wide wally Feb 2019 #15
Who is "they"? jberryhill Feb 2019 #33
The judges themselves world wide wally Feb 2019 #36
Nixon's SC appointees didn't recuse themselves Polybius Feb 2019 #55
Congress could impeach (and should). Liberty Belle Feb 2019 #99
Nothing in the Constitution specifies the makeup of the Supreme Court. bluescribbler Feb 2019 #86
It leaves it up to the Congress dumbcat Feb 2019 #92
The SECOND Democrats have the numbers, the ability, the court MUST be increased so Eliot Rosewater Feb 2019 #102
No authority zipplewrath Feb 2019 #4
No one had "authority" to toss that tea into Boston Harbor either, but doing so sure brought about Atticus Feb 2019 #12
So, are you advocating rebellion dumbcat Feb 2019 #42
Oh, absolutely! That's exactly what that post means! NT Atticus Feb 2019 #45
That's what the folks tossing the tea were doing dumbcat Feb 2019 #46
No, he wants to go to Long Beach and throw some shipping containers into the harbor jberryhill Feb 2019 #77
I like your passion and concern. What you are saying is why are we going to play by the Eliot Rosewater Feb 2019 #103
So you want a violent revolution? zipplewrath Feb 2019 #62
I like your thinking, Atticus leftieNanner Feb 2019 #5
Robert Reich Suggested an Annulment a Few Months Back dlk Feb 2019 #7
I'm all for it ProudLib72 Feb 2019 #8
Good luck with amending it. Codeine Feb 2019 #73
No, I don't think it's likely to happen ProudLib72 Feb 2019 #97
The birthers had the same ridiculous idea during the Obama admin. jberryhill Feb 2019 #9
So, amending the Constitution is a "ridiculous idea"? Really? Atticus Feb 2019 #14
Oh, I see, you are going to get 3/4 of the states to ratify this jberryhill Feb 2019 #16
Sorry you feel "harangued". nt Atticus Feb 2019 #23
Roosevelt threatened to add what? Nine more Supreme Court justices when they refused to play ball? pecosbob Feb 2019 #10
Um, Roosevelt did not get what he wanted frazzled Feb 2019 #28
I should have phrased that differently...he did not get new justices pecosbob Feb 2019 #29
I always found it odd that the SC completely reversed itself for FDR Polybius Feb 2019 #56
Everything I've read said that their opinions changed over time pecosbob Feb 2019 #59
um, he did get what he wanted shanny Feb 2019 #41
Not because of his attempt to pack the courts frazzled Feb 2019 #49
That's not the whole story. shanny Feb 2019 #50
"By 1941 ..." frazzled Feb 2019 #51
"within weeks" shanny Feb 2019 #53
So you think we should just arbitrarily ignore PoindexterOglethorpe Feb 2019 #13
"---arbitrarily ignore the Constitution and the rule of law?" Disagree with what I wrote if you Atticus Feb 2019 #18
Essentially that's what you want to do, even if you aren't wording it that way. PoindexterOglethorpe Feb 2019 #32
Could you point out where I proposed annulment as a way to REMOVE a president? Atticus Feb 2019 #37
The wording is a cinch jberryhill Feb 2019 #19
My, my! I thought you were AGAINST "haranguing people on the internet!" nt Atticus Feb 2019 #26
No. This is one of the low points in the history of the Presidency. We did this. Squinch Feb 2019 #17
I never meant that we scrub Trump from our history books. You are right that we should Atticus Feb 2019 #21
I do hope the next president gets some task force together to examine everything and Squinch Feb 2019 #22
" New statutes COULD be passed and signed into law." And? AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #20
"That is a fact" as long as we allow it to be. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #24
No...that would be up to SCOTUS...I bet it would be 9-0 against you AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #104
I feel much the same way. honest.abe Feb 2019 #25
If the US Constitution is the official blueprint for what is possible, guillaumeb Feb 2019 #27
Oh, God, please make it stop. DavidDvorkin Feb 2019 #30
Count me in!! blueinredohio Feb 2019 #31
I agree with the concept a hundred percent. NanceGreggs Feb 2019 #34
Thank you for your thoughtful response. In general, the law will not allow someone to benefit from Atticus Feb 2019 #39
The authors did forsee this problem zipplewrath Feb 2019 #65
Trying to understand the logic behind annulling all the legislation. MichMan Feb 2019 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author Atticus Feb 2019 #47
Trump didn't pass any legislation, they did MichMan Feb 2019 #52
I am sorry. That response was meant for another post. I have deleted it. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #54
We have a chance to send that cretin packing in a mere twenty one months. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2019 #38
Smiled at the "young man" remark as I just turned 70. And, contrary to "conventional wiisdom", Atticus Feb 2019 #43
It's actually a good idea ck4829 Feb 2019 #40
I guess that if you can just throw out the Constitution and laws, so can Trump? brooklynite Feb 2019 #44
It helps to read what was actually posted before turning to your usual snark. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #48
"The Trump "presidency" doesn't just need to be ended--- it needs to be "anulled" in most respects." brooklynite Feb 2019 #60
I suggested construing the Constitution in a new way, amending the Constitution and enacting new Atticus Feb 2019 #63
How do you expect to do this? Polybius Feb 2019 #57
Yes. Let's stop with the legalisms- dawg day Feb 2019 #58
"When a team has been shown to have cheated in a basketball game, they forfeit the game" brooklynite Feb 2019 #61
I won't be flaming away on you because I arthritisR_US Feb 2019 #64
You realize the process of amending Codeine Feb 2019 #66
Our definitions of "legitimate" could hardly be more disparate. Let's each do what is "doable" Atticus Feb 2019 #67
My definition is based in reality. Codeine Feb 2019 #68
What you term "magical thinking" is at least as viable as the "resigned acceptance" which Atticus Feb 2019 #69
It has nothing whatever to do with Codeine Feb 2019 #71
Legal frameworks and processes do not fall from the sky fully formed. They are CREATED--- Atticus Feb 2019 #82
Agree! Totally annulled, including dismissal of all judges appointed. ananda Feb 2019 #70
By what Constitutional process Codeine Feb 2019 #74
The Constitution COULD be used for toilet paper and flushed down to the sewer, LongtimeAZDem Feb 2019 #76
Somewhere, the trolls are smiling. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #84
The only trolling is your OP. The wole notion is as ridiculous as Trump's "national emergency" idea. LongtimeAZDem Feb 2019 #101
I agree with the sentiment Apollyonus Feb 2019 #79
And it will be dismissed again. Why? Because you can't do that. MineralMan Feb 2019 #80
Trump will be dead and some of his appointees as well before an amendment would be ratified. LakeSuperiorView Feb 2019 #85
Please outline, in detail, the process by which what you suggest could be legally done. WillowTree Feb 2019 #87
No. Have you even read the posts in this thread? nt Atticus Feb 2019 #88
Every one, as a matter of fact. If you're so sure it COULD be done, please provide specifics. WillowTree Feb 2019 #89
Please point out where I said I was SURE of anything. Is that the new standard: don't propose Atticus Feb 2019 #91
You're the one who stated unequivocally in your opening post that those things COULD be done. WillowTree Feb 2019 #95
"could"---past tense of "can"; "used to indicate POSSIBILITY" (my emphasis)------not "certainty". n Atticus Feb 2019 #96
Exactly. It's all magical thinking Codeine Feb 2019 #93
The basis for annulment fails sarisataka Feb 2019 #94
Could a new President Mr.Bill Feb 2019 #98
Yes...like the Dumpster has reversed many of President Obama's EO's. AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #105
Annulment is one path. David Letterman suggested a different one a while ago. Josiesdad Feb 2019 #100
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I have suggested this bef...»Reply #86