Five Beats Four

[DemocratSinceBirth]

That was the theme in Edward Lazarus' book "Closed Chambers" about the Supreme Court... As long as Scalia, (Sc)ailto, Thomas, and Roberts vote as a block with Kennedy joining in the liberal position will always be defeated on the Supreme Court...

Congress has the power to adjust the number of Supreme Court justices...For instance if there was a Democratic president and Congress they could incease the number of justices to eleven or fifteen or whatever they decided on thus marginaling the conservative block...I am not advocating it but it is something to think about...

The composition of the Supreme Court is usually my first consideration in voting... I want the government to stay out of my bedroom...

[AnneD]

1. Been there done that....

Check your history....Roosevelt tried to pack the court.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I Am Aware

But is was only after Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court because they were overturning all his New Deal legislation that they stopped overturning it...

In fact the press called it "the switch in time that saved nine" ;



“The switch in time that saved nine” was the name given by the press to the apparent sudden shift by Justice Owen J. Roberts from the conservative wing of the Supreme Court (represented by the Four Horsemen) to the liberal wing (represented by the Three Musketeers) in the case West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). Roberts joined Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, and Justices Louis Brandeis, Benjamin N. Cardozo, and Harlan Fiske Stone in upholding a Washington State minimum wage law. The term is a reference to the aphorism "A stitch in time saves nine", which means that preventive maintenance is best.<1>


The decision was handed down less than two months after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his Court-packing Bill and it was widely seen as a reaction to that bill. Justice Roberts shifted his vote before President Roosevelt actually submitted his court-packing proposal to Congress. However, Roosevelt made his proposal public on March 9, 1937 during his 9th Fireside Chat. The high court's decision in West Coast Hotel was not handed down until after Roosevelt's public announcement (the decision was issued on March 29, 1937; see West Coast Hotel.) Thus, Roosevelt's public announcement may have contributed to Justice Roberts' motivation for switching from his previous freedom of contract decisions. On the other hand, some historians argue that the Justices had voted on the case before the public announcement, so there is an on-going debate among historians on the accuracy of the traditional view.<2>

The switch, together with the resignation of Justice Willis Van Devanter a month later are often viewed as having contributed to the defeat of the Bill, preserving the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices, as it remains to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

And FDR went on to win two more elections after his court packing plan failed,,,

[notadmblnd]

2. how about firing the last two and cutting back to seven

You know.. reduce government the way the pukes like it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. They Would Have To Be Impeached

eom

[AnneD]

5. I think

Abe Fortis stepped down. I am sure there is a nice juicy conflict of interest somewhere.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I Think Abe Fortas Stepped Down Because Of Ethical Questions

eom

[AnneD]

9. Well....

I have always questioned Clarence Thomas' ethics as well as Scalia's.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. They Had Something Tangible On Fortas

Fortas remained on the bench, but in 1969, a new scandal arose. Fortas had accepted a secret $20,000 retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client, in January 1966. Fortas signed a contract with Wolfson's foundation; in return for unspecified advice it was to pay Fortas $20,000 a year for the rest of Fortas's life (and then pay his widow for the rest of her life). Wolfson was under investigation for securities violations at the time and expected that his arrangement with Fortas would help him stave off criminal charges or help him secure a presidential pardon; Fortas denied that he ever helped Wolfson. Wolfson was convicted of violating federal securities laws later that year and spent time in prison, and Fortas returned the retainer.

When Chief Justice Earl Warren was informed of the incident by the new Attorney General John N. Mitchell, he persuaded Fortas to resign to protect the reputation of the Court and avoid lengthy impeachment proceedings, which were in their preliminary stages. President Nixon eventually appointed as his replacement Harry A. Blackmun, after two previous nominations failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas

I guess you are referring to the fact that Thomas might have perjured himself during his confirmation hearing with regard to the Anita Hill accusations... The Senate "decided" he didn't when they confirmed him...Also, if you remember he refused to even discuss the allegations...


Back to the "five beats four" argument since the (well) right of center judges are relatively young the best a liberal can hope for is to maintain an unpalatable status quo...

[AnneD]

11. Thanks for the refresher...

I am not a Constitutional scholor and I was a young slip of a girl (13) when all that with Fortas happened but I think I probably remember more than the average Joe. Thanks again for the refresher. I was highly pissed when Thomas was seated. IMHO, that was the begining of the decline of the SCOTUS.

[wuushew]

7. Well on the bright side, the Robert's court is hearing an all time low of cases

Although Bush has done plenty to destroy the lower courts as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. It's A Mess

That's the price of losing presidential elections ...