The Ends Justify The Means
Mar 1, 2010 Political
A new idea has emerged from at least one liberal, er progressive. Barack Obama should add more justices to the Supreme Court so that he can get what he wants. OK, the idea is not new. As the article espousing such an idea points out, the Constitution does not say how many justices are to be on the SCOTUS and the size of it has changed over the years, often for political purposes.
The court is supposed to be apolitical. We know this is not the case because it has human beings on it. However, the public is not taking the power grab in DC very kindly and will not take a power grab of this magnitude kindly either, especially if it is for the purpose of achieving their agenda. The public did not take too kindly to this idea when FDR tried it. He, like all progressives, believed the ends justified the means. As it turns out, he never had to pack the court but he certainly wanted to just to get his way.
This idea is floated by Stan Isaacs at the Philadelphia Inquirer and I would not be surprised if this idea has already been considered by the calculating progressives in DC.
The thing they would have to worry about is the rebound or blowback of the issue. Suppose they were able to change the number on the court to pass what they wanted. Then suppose in three years Obama loses to a Republican and there is a majority Republican Congress. What would stop the Republicans from decreasing the size of the Court to three, the three most conservative, and then bringing everything they wanted changed before the court? They could end abortion, change gun laws to reflect the Constitution, and get just about anything they wanted passed. This would certainly bring a howl from the progressives but they will have set the precedent.
I am not sure how they could change this but if it requires a vote from Congress I doubt they would have enough to stop a Republican filibuster. I also doubt this would gain much traction even if they had the votes to change it because America would not be too happy. Moe Lane makes a good point:
Leaving aside the fact that author Stan Isaacs apparently felt the need to educate his readers about something which would be familiar to anybody with even a basic working knowledge of 20th century American history*, I’m wondering whether Isaacs can actually count. The President can declare as many Supreme Court justices as he likes; getting them confirmed requires Senate approval.
A lot of Democrats are seeing their political lives flash before their eyes and the images will get much clearer as we get closer to November so it is unlikely they will do anything that will further decrease their chances to be reelected.
And they would have to do it now. They cannot take the chance they will lose too many votes in November to pass it.
Interesting idea floated about by the followers of Alinsky but I doubt it will go anywhere.
As always though, we need to remain vigilant.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: fdr, justices, Obama, philadelphia inquirer, stan isaacs, supreme court