Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Professor, with the last two threads, it looks like you're building a theme here : Academics in over their heads.
I read the article, and I think Carrington is nuts--but the most bizarre part was the non sequiter of the last sentence.
I understand who the Packers are. But who are the Lions?Bad metaphor, I guess.
The real court packing scheme is that Ginsburg, Breyer (bad health, I believe) and, probably, Alito and Kennedy (age) will all go in the next POTUS' term.Another reason for ABO.
(the other kev)Do all academics live in this big a coccoon, or just the left-leaning ones?Either way, Big Ed can't fail fast enough.
If Obama has gotten zero, zero votes (414-0 and Reid won't even bring it up) for his 2013 Budget, what is the chance that a Dem will vote for something historically stupid as packing the SCOTUS. Congresspersons ultimately look out for number 1. Even FDR could not get the people to support the plan back in the day....
Back when George W. Bush was appointing conservative judges, word on the left was the President was "packing" the courts. They didn't understand the term then, and now they think it's just OK.
The correlation between the mid-term losses in 1938 and the "Court packing scheme" is small. The Presidential party always loses big in the 3rd mid-term election. 1958, 1950, 1938, 1986, 1974, 2006. The only exception is probably 1996, but that's because the Republicans held both houses.FDR could have fixed the problem of Judicial overreach by constitutional amendment but tried to do it in a typical FDR manner, i.e clever and dishonest.
This reminds me of the article I read a few days ago that suggested the impeachment of conservative members of the Supreme Court. It's all pretty hilarious, because if they had the votes to impeach or pack the court, wouldn't they also have the votes to just pass single-payer?
@The Drill SGT, Congresspersons ultimately look out for number 1.I used to believe that until they rammed Obamacare through. I thought it was pretty obvious at the time that the public was not in favor of it, but they went full speed ahead, damn the torpedos. And a lot of them lost their next election because of it. We can only hope Obama doesn't hold as much sway over them any longer.
It should be clear that basing predictions of the future based on data from the past is a dangerous game. Obama is not just Obama, he is a machine. Romney is not just Romney he is now the only defense against the Obama machine.
I love the WaPo item at the bottom:TRUE BUT FALSEIs it anything like FAKE BUT ACCURATE?
I blame Duke LAX for Carrington's silliness. There can be no other rational explanation.
I agree that, if Obama tried to pack the court, it would be a disaster. But I always understood FDR's court packing attempt to be a success. Not because he actually managed to pack the court, but because the threat forced the court to back down and allow his New Deal programs (thus extending the Depression by several years, and ensuring a lifetime presidency based on pure dependancy for Mr. Roosevelt.)
rcocean,The correlation between the mid-term losses in 1938 and the "Court packing scheme" is small. The Presidential party always loses big in the 3rd mid-term election. 1958, 1950, 1938, 1986, 1974, 2006. The only exception is probably 1996, but that's because the Republicans held both houses.Taranto's point (or, rather, that of the NY Sun editorialist he was quoting) was that FDR specifically targeted Representatives that had voted against the Court-packing scheme, and every one of them who was running won, while every candidate the President campaigned for lost. If that's true and I have not checked it that's not your ordinary half-way-through-the-second-term slump.
I think FDR by his very existence indicated the need for an independent judiciary. Most of the most hiideous offenses against our civil rights took place during his tenure. I'm thinking, of course, of his round up and internment of out groups such as Japanese and Roumanians post Pearl Harbor. We need a vigilant and protective Supreme Court such as we had during the Warren years to protect our rights from an overreaching executive branch. (Hey, irony fans, did you catch that last allusion. Earl Warren was the guy who administered the internment program.).....But, to be fair, FDR by his very existence also points out the need for some type of age limit on Supreme Court Justices. When he ran in 1944, he was half dead. Despite his obvious infirmities, he took it upon himself to manage the war and negotiate the fate of post war world at Yalta. People of power and advanced years simply cannot be trusted to judge their own acuity and competence. And that goes for both liberals and conservatives. Justice Souter was the only justice in recent memory who retired at an appropriate time. There's too many zombies on the Court. When word leaks out that Ginsburg is only kept alive by bathing in the blood of virgins, it will severely damage the reputation of the Court.
Professor, with the last two threads, it looks like you're building a theme here : Academics in over their heads.I like when blogs have themes going.For example, over at National Review Online they have a theme this week: Which of our racist writers should we disassociate from and which should we keep on the payroll?
For example, over at National Review Online they have a theme this week: Which of our racist writers should we disassociate from and which should we keep on the payroll?Good grief, dude, quit trolling. It's like we're in a cafe having a conversation and you rush in screaming "Didja all kno 'bout RACISM?!"
Sorry to be a downer, but Obama will be reinstalled in November (even in the very unlikely event he DOES leave office without being chiseled out of his chair via military force, it'll be Obama Lite), which means, as has been pointed out that the entire shape of the Court will be remade. Filled with Justices selected based upon their race, gender-identity, and loyalty to the Blue Agenda.Not much left to do but get the popcorn and watch our country circle the drain, really.Orion
OrionNot sure what you mean here:"(even in the very unlikely event he DOES leave office without being chiseled out of his chair via military force, it'll be Obama Lite)"
I didn't know what it meant either. Now I do. I am feeling the power of this new knowledge surge within me. I am feeling things I do not understand. I am seeing myself talking to someone and they're going, "blah blah pack the courts blah blah," and I go, "waitaminit, what do you mean when you say that? And then they say appoint as many of your guys as you can and I go,WRONG YOU IDIOT! IT MEANS CHANGE THE WHOLE THING TO GET MORE JUDGES! YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL. HA HA HA
Wyo Sis - Sorry for being unclear. Candidate Romney is essentially Obama Lite. I doubt his Presidency would be much different than President Obama's.Orion
They would first have to come up with some rationalization of why the court needs to be expanded in size. If they are able to justify that, I would propose the following mechanism for expansion to 15 justices:On the final day in office of a President (the final day of the second term only if he is re-elected) The President may recommend two justices for confirmation by the Senate which must be both confirmed or both denied confirmation by the next Congress.This process would continue with each sitting President until the court reaches 15 justices.The only advantage to 15 justices is that it would likely result in replacements occurring at more frequent intervals allowing the court, over time, to more accurately reflect the changing cultural values of the society.Maybe.
OT: But can anybody explain why Holder is praising known race hustler Al Sharpton?Is this the hope and change you Obama voters wanted?"Thank you, Reverend [Al] Sharpton. I appreciate your kind words, but I am especially grateful for your prayers – and for your partnership, your friendship, and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless, and to shine a light on the problems we must solve, and the promises we must fulfill."http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-120411.html
OrionRomney is lite years (if we have to use the word lite) better than Obama. Heck, "anybody but" is better than Obama. I can't say I'm wildly enthusiastic about Romney, but I'll be that way by the time the election rolls around. The reason I will be is, unless Romney wins by a landslide Obama will win by whatever means necessary. It's time to be very clear eyed about our choices. The Supreme Court is just one of the issues we need to keep in mind.
ChipI NEVER know what you mean.
Romney is not "Obama Lite". Obama has been an unmitigated disaster when it comes to our nation's financial health. Romney, by contrast, has shown during his career that he can turn money losing enterprises around. That's a very important distinction between the two men that people shouldn't overlook.
William, since you name Romanians and bathing in blood, I wonder if you know the true tale of the Romanian Princess who killed over 600 local girls in the 1600's and bathed in their blood to save her fading beauty. Could not sentence her to death since she was Royal but they did cement her in a tower until her death. I will also look up the Romanian interment having read only of the Japanese. Thanks.
Post a Comment