NYT op-ed, "Stacking the Court": There's nothing sacrosanct about 9 justices -- pack the Court!

[DeepModem Mom]

Op-Ed Contributor
Stacking the Court
By JEAN EDWARD SMITH
Published: July 26, 2007
Huntington, W.Va.

WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.

The framers of the Constitution did not envisage the Supreme Court as arbiter of all national issues. As Chief Justice John Marshall made clear in Marbury v. Madison, the court’s authority extends only to legal issues....

...the method most frequently employed to bring the court to heel has been increasing or decreasing its membership. The size of the Supreme Court is not fixed by the Constitution. It is determined by Congress....

***

...there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices on the Supreme Court. Roosevelt’s 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike.

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.

(Jean Edward Smith is the author, most recently, of “F.D.R.”)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26smith.html

[JeffR]

1. Wow. Smith was one of my profs way back when

staunch-conservative type, but damn knowledgeable about Constitutional history. I'm lovin' this idea.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Really? Interesting! nt

[JeffR]

7. He reminded me of William Buckley

You knew you didn't like him but you couldn't quite bring yourself to dislike him. It's some kind of progressive mental disorder, or something.

[BringEmOn]

3. In the year 2050, there are 427 Supreme Court Justices?

[aquart]

15. Gosh, a completely silly statement.

Perhaps you would share the reasoning behind it.

[IChing]

4. I said this over a month ago and met

some resistance,
but I still see it as the only way break
the catholic, federalist, neo-con majority.

[aquart]

16. The resistance does have to do with the FDR court packing.

What I adore about this article is that it does the first necessary thing for a huge change: it links it to tradition and makes it seem like normal continuity. Respected, normal presidents did it all the time.

Roberts needs to lead a life of desperate frustration and unhappiness. This might help that along.

[Bluestar]

5. Oh, wow, I love this idea!!! n/t

[poverlay]

6. Wow. Great tidbit. In fact, that's the first ray of hope for the next generation I've seen since

election night of '04.

[SeattleGirl]

8. Interesting! I had no idea. Thanks for posting this! n/t

[BringEmOn]

9. Better to move in the other direction. Reduce the number to seven.

Impeach and remove Alito and Roberts.

[aquart]

17. MUCH more difficult to prove a crime with them.

Render them irrelevant. This would also ruin the happiness of Scalia. I would like to ruin the happiness of Scalia.

[Nevernose]

10. "Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant"

You mean "liberals?"

Sometimes I feel like we've been abandoned by all four estates...

[Pushed To The Left]

11. Actually, doing this would be UN-stacking the Court. The stacking has already been done by the Bush

Administration and the Republicans. Adding a couple of non-partisan Justices to the bench might be what America needs to undo the damage done to the SC by the right wing.

[krispos42]

12. I said this six weeks ago. Where were all you supporters then?!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3316614


Lord!

[rockymountaindem]

13. Would anybody actually do this?

With the legions of Rush Limbaugh and his clones crying foul all over the airwaves, I don't think anybody would dare. If nothing else, it would look bad and people would call it being a "sore loser" and bring up that "elections have consequences" (for liberals, not neocons) shtick.

[enough]

20. They are going to yell and scream no matter what.

If the democrats control congress, this seems like a viable option, given the historical facts presented.

NOTHING is going to stop the ranting from the rightwing airwaves. We should do what they do about everything we say. Ignore it.

[Marr]

27. I couldn't agree more.

They're going to rant about everything the political opposition does. I once heard a right wing show fuel a full hour of air time over nothing but the color of Democratic politicians' ties. Literally.

So if that's the case, why not push constantly? Let them suffer from the Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. They've been screaming about nothing at all for so long, I expect their complaints will be nothing but background noise.

[struggle4progress]

24. Perhaps that's why the conservative is recommending it?

When conservatives wander up with "helpful" advice for progressives about what we should do, it's really best to be too busy to listen: otherwise, you're in for a long session of silly mind games

[Control-Z]

14. K and R n/t

[qdemn7]

18. Definitely opposed...

All Federal Judges should be term-limited to 25 years on a particular bench. And 75 should be the up and out age, period.

[live love laugh]

19. Imagine the spin on that one. . .

"The Democrats want to politicize the Supreme Court"

"The Democrats seek to stack the courts in their favor"

"Some People Say The Democrats want to undermine the American Justice System"

[FreepFryer]

22. To which I would say "A fair court doesn't roll back precedents on a standing 5-4 count" (n/t)

[mondo joe]

21. If the number were REDUCED I wonder how the cuts are made.

Last two in are the first two out?

[struggle4progress]

23. SCOTUS has had nine for about 140 years. And FDR got clobbered politically for trying this.

My suggestion? Don't even listen to advice from wingnuts about what progressives ought to do -- we don't need their silly mindgames

[onenote]

25. exactly...

[tammywammy]

26. Agreed!

[Kolesar]

28. Supreme court justices-Browse a huge selection now. Find exactly what you want today-www.ebay.com

That is the real "Google Ad" that I can see at the top of my page right now.

Supreme court justices
Browse a huge selection now. Find exactly what you want today.
www.eBay.com