If Obama were really concerned about the SCOTUS decision

[Duer 157099]

He could appoint an additional two judges and then have the ruling overturned.

Drastic measure of course, and one that could only be done by an Administration with balls, but it's possible, technically and legally.

[90-percent]

1. That's not drastic

Flying a drone into the Supreme Court Building and leveling it would be drastic. And considering what's at stake, I think the circumstances call for it.

-90% jimmy

[MadBadger]

2. This place is absolutely certifiable at this point

[roguevalley]

3. The DU or the counry? Frankly, I think everyone is entitled to their emotions right now.

[Bobbie Jo]

5. Word.

:argh:

[cali]

6. DU is always filled with loopy stuff

it's part of its charm.

[MadBadger]

9. Brown's Win Tuesday sent it way over the edge.

[anonymous171]

4. First he needs to find a way to connect the SC to the corporations somehow

SO that he can justify this blatant (but justified) powergrab. Shouldn't be too hard with the NSA at his disposal.

[scheming daemons]

7. Not really "legally". FDR tried court-stacking, and he was wrong to do so...

We could be like the right and pray for certain justices to get hit by a bus....


But changing the court from 9 to a larger number would be shot down... by a court challenge... before the court.

[tekisui]

16. It sent the message, and got results.

[anonymous171]

19. It wasn'twrong. The Supreme court was trying to take apart the New Deal

And thereby destroy the country. FDR did what was necessary and it was just.

[mth44sc]

8. How well did that work out for FDR?

just askin'

[anonymous171]

12. The Supreme Court stopped legislating from the bench after that

Although it did cost him a shitton of political capital.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I suggest readying the Constitution

that would require an ... AMENDMENT.

As much as I hate to point this out, this is not a dictatorship, YET.

[joeunderdog]

13. Constitution? I thought that boat sank in the 9/11 attack.

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Actually earlier

December 12, 2000

[Codeine]

11. No he can't.

That requires legislation. He can't just unilaterally add more judges. FDR tried -- FDR failed.

Where do people get these ideas?

[Libertas1776]

14. There is nothing in the constitution

that limits the number of justices there can be. It's just a matter of ethics. It turned out to be a boondoggle for FDR because it struck the body politic as unethical. Of course, I think drastic measures are necessary when it is the court that does the unethical.

[FBaggins]

15. That a great idea... if you want to lose the presidency as well.

He can't just appoint additional judges... there has to be a law adding two new members of the court. A law that would be incredibly easy to filibuster. Democrats (particularly the president) would then be tarred with the act (despite the fact that it failed) and would lose even more seats (and the WH).

The correct way to fix this is to amend the Constitution.

[JohnnyLib2]

17. Facepalm, I need a face palm.

:wow: