FDR didn’t have the advantage of the cover and justification granted by the utter cheating garbage that’s currently running the GOP. Now that the GOP has stolen two seats, the only way to actually have an actual legitimate court is to add two.
You need 2/3rds majority to convict of impeachment.
You better hope you are wrong. If things are as bad and as failed as you portray then we are headed for serious violence. Think about what you are saying. If one major party thinks the system has completely failed they either capitulate or revolt.
Absolutely incorrect. If you read the rest of my post, you will see that I point out that trump spent a lot of time in swing states. Who knows how many votes he would have gotten if he had just focused on population dense areas.
The fact that you can gin up a 3 million vote lead by taking california by 5 million votes while your opponent fall 3 million votes short by spending time in towns that don’e even have 3 million people says little about the relative popular support these two candidates have.
two? How so?
The popular vote is an irrelevant number.
And who knows how many more votes Hillary would have gotten had she spent all her time in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.? Who cares? This is fantasyland stuff. Hillary won the popular vote. The vote count in CA is irrelevant when discussing the popular vote. This is just a way to demean voters in California.
I am working under the presumption that they are going to Steal RBG’s. If not, I’ll amend my comment to one, but McConnell is gonna do it unless he doesn’t have the votes. And that depends on four Senate Republicans not being utter trash.
Which is why I am accepting it as a given.
Well, the nuclear option outside of civil war is for the states to call for a constitutional convention and really consolidate power.
She got the popular vote winner prize as well.
Of course I hope I’m wrong! Hopefully McConnell is a wonderful and decent person. Hopefully Trump is too.
Lol. Let’s not get carried away.
I refuse to accept that you actually believe this nonsense.
2016, Party A says “Rule X applies” Party B says “You just made up Rule X and it’s partisan nonsense!”
2020, Party A says “Rule X? Never heard of it.” Party B says “You should follow the same rules you demanded from 4 years ago.”
You’re claim is that their both hypocrites?
One thing to take into account is that the hostility the court showed early against FDR’s progressive policies did go away in part because of the talk about packing the court. Once some justices began to notice how out of tune they were, they switched to be in favor of Roosevelt’s new policies, and so the need to pack the court was gone. FDR lost that battle, but he won the war.
The court, however, would spring some surprises of its own. On March 29, by 5 to 4, in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, it validated a minimum wage law from the state of Washington, a statute essentially no different from the New York state act it had struck down only months before. As a result, a hotel in Wenatchee, Washington, would be required to pay back wages to Elsie Parrish, a chambermaid. Two weeks later, in several 5 to 4 rulings, the court sustained the National Labor Relations Act. A tribunal that in 1936 had held that coal mining, although conducted in many states, did not constitute interstate commerce, now gave so broad a reading to the Constitution that it accepted intervention by the federal government in the labor practices of a single Virginia clothing factory. On May 24, the court that in 1935 had declared that Congress, in enacting a pension law, had exceeded its powers, found the Social Security statute constitutional.
This set of decisions came about because one justice, Owen Roberts, switched his vote. Ever since, historians have argued about why he did so. We know that he changed his mind on the validity of minimum wage laws for women before Roosevelt delivered his court-packing message, so FDR’s proposal could not have been the proximate cause. Since there is no archival evidence to account for his abrupt change on the minimum wage cases, scholars have been reduced to speculation. Perhaps, during a visit to Roberts’ country retreat in Pennsylvania, Chief Justice Hughes had warned his younger colleague that the court was placing itself in jeopardy. Perhaps Roberts was impressed by the dimensions of FDR’s landslide, which indicated that the president, not the court’s majority, spoke for the nation. Perhaps he was affected by the biting criticism from within the legal community. It is even harder to account for why Roberts, in his subsequent votes in the Wagner Act and Social Security cases, supported such a vast extension of federal power—but the pressure exerted by the court-packing bill may very likely have been influential.
Roberts’ switch had two consequences for Roosevelt, only one of them good. The president could rejoice that his program might now be safe, as indeed it was. Never again would the court strike down a New Deal law. But Roberts’ switch— and the announcement by Willis Van Devanter, one of the Four Horsemen, that he planned to retire—seriously undermined support for FDR’s court-packing bill. Why, senators asked, continue the fight after the court was rendering the kinds of decisions the president had been hoping for? Or, as one wag put it, “Why shoot the bridegroom after a shotgun wedding?” With each new ruling upholding the government, support for the legislation eroded, and by the end of May Roosevelt no longer had the votes needed to enact the measure. Washingtonians regaled one another with a reworking of an old proverb that speedily made the rounds of movers and shakers: “A switch in time saved nine.”
In truth, the jest was a mite too clever, for the struggle had not yet ended, but after Robert’s switch Roosevelt was never again as powerful as he had been that election night in November. On July 22, the Senate, weary of the strife, buried FDR’s bill. From the Senate floor, California’s Hiram Johnson, arms upstretched in a victory salute, looked up at the galleries and cried, “Glory be to God!”
The nasty fight over court packing turned out better than might have been expected. The defeat of the bill meant that the institutional integrity of the United States Supreme Court had been preserved—its size had not been manipulated for political or ideological ends. On the other hand, Roosevelt claimed that though he had lost the battle, he had won the war. And in an important sense he had: he had staved off the expected invalidation of the Social Security Act and other laws. More significantly, the switch in the court that spring resulted in what historians call “the constitutional revolution of 1937”—the legitimation of a greatly expanded exercise of powers by both the national and state governments that has persisted for decades.
Believing nonsense is a core conservative tenet.
I agree the whole popular vote canard is fantasyland stuff. Who knows what the popular vote would have been if the popular vote actually mattered for anything. California voters should not have that much more access to candidate than wyoming voters either. Candidates can reach 50 times as many california voters wityh a campaign stop as in wyoming. The los angeles media market has 100 times more people than wyoming but the advertising costs only 20-30 times more.
Popular votes don’t matter until you get a constitutional amendment. Sorry if Hillary didn’t understand that and ended up spending a shitload of time in California and very little in Wisconsin. But that popular vote advantage in california is meaningless once you have won california by a sufficient margin to avoid recounts.
How do the same liberals/Democrats who complain about how Democrats are always much less united as a bloc than conservatives/Republicans are, expect enough Congressional Democrats to stay united and not defect when the court-packing plan comes up?
It’s like they think that, say, a 52-seat Senate majority or 220-seat House majority is ironclad when they themselves have complained numerous times about how the D’s are more fractious and ‘play too nice.’
Wait, did they steal Merrick Garland’s spot or are they trying to steal RBGs spot. Either they stole the last one and are entitled to this one or they were entitled to the last one and are trying to steal this one.
I doubt that accusations of hypocrisy would hurt any politicians feelings if it didn’t diminish their electoral prospects.
The switch in time that saved 9
They stole Merrick Garland’s spot by inventing a new rule and refusing to vote on Obama’s pick.
They are stealing RBG’s by ignoring the new rule they invented.
They did two wrong things. The first was inventing a new rule. The second is ignoring the new rule the first chance they got. Surely this is pretty clear?
Perhaps you should think about it. As you’ve noted, our side has your side outnumbered. The Confederates started a war in 1861 and the Nazis started a war in 1941; if the Republicans start a war in 2021, we’ll beat you again. Apparently getting your ass kicked every eighty years is part of the right wing life cycle.