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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I have suggested this before and it was pretty much dismissed as "You can't do that because [View all]bluescribbler
(2,105 posts)86. Nothing in the Constitution specifies the makeup of the Supreme Court.
#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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
105 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I have suggested this before and it was pretty much dismissed as "You can't do that because [View all]
Atticus
Feb 2019
OP
I guess my question is why should we limit ourselves to "normal legislative functioning" to
Atticus
Feb 2019
#6
"Government by fiat"? No reasonably intelligent honest person could so characterize
Atticus
Feb 2019
#78
You seem content to battle straw men so I will leave you to it. Have a good one. nt
Atticus
Feb 2019
#83
Hear, hear. Too many people--even here at DU--seem to think the old cliche is true--
First Speaker
Feb 2019
#2
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
The SECOND Democrats have the numbers, the ability, the court MUST be increased so
Eliot Rosewater
Feb 2019
#102
No one had "authority" to toss that tea into Boston Harbor either, but doing so sure brought about
Atticus
Feb 2019
#12
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
Roosevelt threatened to add what? Nine more Supreme Court justices when they refused to play ball?
pecosbob
Feb 2019
#10
"---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
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
Thank you for your thoughtful response. In general, the law will not allow someone to benefit from
Atticus
Feb 2019
#39
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
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
"When a team has been shown to have cheated in a basketball game, they forfeit the game"
brooklynite
Feb 2019
#61
Our definitions of "legitimate" could hardly be more disparate. Let's each do what is "doable"
Atticus
Feb 2019
#67
What you term "magical thinking" is at least as viable as the "resigned acceptance" which
Atticus
Feb 2019
#69
Legal frameworks and processes do not fall from the sky fully formed. They are CREATED---
Atticus
Feb 2019
#82
The Constitution COULD be used for toilet paper and flushed down to the sewer,
LongtimeAZDem
Feb 2019
#76
The only trolling is your OP. The wole notion is as ridiculous as Trump's "national emergency" idea.
LongtimeAZDem
Feb 2019
#101
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
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
Annulment is one path. David Letterman suggested a different one a while ago.
Josiesdad
Feb 2019
#100