COULD OBAMA STACK THE SUPREME COURT
With the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the pundits and Senators are making speculation as to who is on Obama's short list to become the first SCOTUS appointment for the 44th President. According to Utah GOP Senator Orrin Hatch who met with Obama on his pending appointment, the nomination could come before weeks end.
Whoever Obama picks will obviously be of the liberal persuasion which will in actuality not change the make up of the Court as Justice Souter has for the most part sided with the liberal Justices in most of his opinions and decisions. Though appointed by Bush 41 and thought at the time to be a moderate to conservative appointment, Souter has been far from that persuasion and Obama's pick will fall in line with Souters record or even further left.
While Obama's pick will not make any significant change as far as the decisions of the Court there is one concern that I have for the future of the Court under Barack Obama. Obama in his policy and his agenda very much emulates Franklin Roosevelt, though Obama is more radical and further left then even FDR was.
In 1937 in an attempt to stop the Courts negative decisions to many of Roosevelt's New Deal policies which had stopped cold many of the legislative initiatives that were over turned by the Court because of Constitutional challenges, FDR tried to stack the Court in his favor with Judges who tended to agree with the direction the New Deal was designed to take the country and would side in favor of FDR in Constitutional challenges to his policy.
Using the pretence of appointing one Judge for every sitting Judge over the age of 70 in order to maintain Court continuity when older Judges retired, FDR proposed to the Congress the ability to give the President authority to appoint more than the nine Judges that had been the norm since the 1869 Judiciary Act which was initiated by Chief Justice Salmon Chase to reduce the size of the Court to nine Justices since the Constitution set no limits as to the number of Justices.
Though claiming the move was for Court continuity Congress understood that FDR's proposal was to stack the Court in his favor and the initiative fell to defeat by a 70 - 20 vote in the Senate which stripped the bill of its Court packing provision. This move caused political damage to Roosevelt that he never fully recovered from for the remainder of his time as President.
Obama is possibly facing a similar situation with the Courts in the not to distant future. Many of his policy initiatives that have been passed and are in the process of being proposed have been questioned as to the Constitutionality of the legislation. Thus far there have been no Constitutional challenges to Obama's agenda which I believe is because many are still in a state of shock resulting from how swiftly he has moved and hastily he has pushed through the legislation.
Eventually Constitutional challenges will arise and if the nine Justices actually follow the true intent of the Constitution many of Obama's policies will not stand especially in light of the 10th Amendment which specifically refers to limited government calling for the, "powers not delegated, " to the government in the Seven Articles shall be , "reserved," for the people and the States.
Certainly his moves with GM and Chrysler would also fall under Constitutional question and Presidential authority as established in Article II since he has fired one CEO and news is coming to light of pressure by the Obama administration on Chrysler stock holders to take options that were not in their best interest in order to allow a bankruptcy that would financially favor the Unions over the top stock holders.
So with Constitutional challenges a distinct possibility and the make up of the Court even with the Souter replacement not changing from its present configuration, Obama could try and follow FDR's example and stack the Court in his favor. With a 60 vote Senate Majority Obama could try and exert political capital in order to stack the Court if the challenges take place and if he loses those challenges before the Supreme Court.
Also in conjunction to the make up of the Court, Obama faces the possible retirement of some of the older Justices who, with the exception of Scalia, are all more liberal in their decisions. Scalia, if his health holds out will also hold out until he can retire with a President in office who will replace him with a like minded Justice. So knowing that Obama's possible future replacements would not change the current make up of the Court, could spark a move to add to the number in order to create a Court in his image. Especially while he has a strong majority in the Senate to back him.
Obama has stated in the past concerning the redistribution of wealth and the civil rights legislation of the sixties that was challenged in the Courts, that the Supreme Court failed to exceed their, "Constitutional restraints, " concerning wealth redistribution and as such in Obama's opinion the courts failed in their application of the law during the civil rights legislative initiatives. Proving that Obama believes in a very activist court and a loose interpretation of the Constitution by the Court.
The current more balanced Court is not as activist as Obama believes the Court should be and as such he may again use the possibility of stacking the Court to make the activist Court that he would create which would be a legacy left behind changing the balance and make up of the Court for years to come. A move that is not out of the rhelm of possibility for at least the next nearly two years while Obama has the political strength in the Senate. Knowing that the 60 vote strength could change against him in the 2010 mid term election.
Ken Taylor
Whoever Obama picks will obviously be of the liberal persuasion which will in actuality not change the make up of the Court as Justice Souter has for the most part sided with the liberal Justices in most of his opinions and decisions. Though appointed by Bush 41 and thought at the time to be a moderate to conservative appointment, Souter has been far from that persuasion and Obama's pick will fall in line with Souters record or even further left.
While Obama's pick will not make any significant change as far as the decisions of the Court there is one concern that I have for the future of the Court under Barack Obama. Obama in his policy and his agenda very much emulates Franklin Roosevelt, though Obama is more radical and further left then even FDR was.
In 1937 in an attempt to stop the Courts negative decisions to many of Roosevelt's New Deal policies which had stopped cold many of the legislative initiatives that were over turned by the Court because of Constitutional challenges, FDR tried to stack the Court in his favor with Judges who tended to agree with the direction the New Deal was designed to take the country and would side in favor of FDR in Constitutional challenges to his policy.
Using the pretence of appointing one Judge for every sitting Judge over the age of 70 in order to maintain Court continuity when older Judges retired, FDR proposed to the Congress the ability to give the President authority to appoint more than the nine Judges that had been the norm since the 1869 Judiciary Act which was initiated by Chief Justice Salmon Chase to reduce the size of the Court to nine Justices since the Constitution set no limits as to the number of Justices.
Though claiming the move was for Court continuity Congress understood that FDR's proposal was to stack the Court in his favor and the initiative fell to defeat by a 70 - 20 vote in the Senate which stripped the bill of its Court packing provision. This move caused political damage to Roosevelt that he never fully recovered from for the remainder of his time as President.
Obama is possibly facing a similar situation with the Courts in the not to distant future. Many of his policy initiatives that have been passed and are in the process of being proposed have been questioned as to the Constitutionality of the legislation. Thus far there have been no Constitutional challenges to Obama's agenda which I believe is because many are still in a state of shock resulting from how swiftly he has moved and hastily he has pushed through the legislation.
Eventually Constitutional challenges will arise and if the nine Justices actually follow the true intent of the Constitution many of Obama's policies will not stand especially in light of the 10th Amendment which specifically refers to limited government calling for the, "powers not delegated, " to the government in the Seven Articles shall be , "reserved," for the people and the States.
Certainly his moves with GM and Chrysler would also fall under Constitutional question and Presidential authority as established in Article II since he has fired one CEO and news is coming to light of pressure by the Obama administration on Chrysler stock holders to take options that were not in their best interest in order to allow a bankruptcy that would financially favor the Unions over the top stock holders.
So with Constitutional challenges a distinct possibility and the make up of the Court even with the Souter replacement not changing from its present configuration, Obama could try and follow FDR's example and stack the Court in his favor. With a 60 vote Senate Majority Obama could try and exert political capital in order to stack the Court if the challenges take place and if he loses those challenges before the Supreme Court.
Also in conjunction to the make up of the Court, Obama faces the possible retirement of some of the older Justices who, with the exception of Scalia, are all more liberal in their decisions. Scalia, if his health holds out will also hold out until he can retire with a President in office who will replace him with a like minded Justice. So knowing that Obama's possible future replacements would not change the current make up of the Court, could spark a move to add to the number in order to create a Court in his image. Especially while he has a strong majority in the Senate to back him.
Obama has stated in the past concerning the redistribution of wealth and the civil rights legislation of the sixties that was challenged in the Courts, that the Supreme Court failed to exceed their, "Constitutional restraints, " concerning wealth redistribution and as such in Obama's opinion the courts failed in their application of the law during the civil rights legislative initiatives. Proving that Obama believes in a very activist court and a loose interpretation of the Constitution by the Court.
The current more balanced Court is not as activist as Obama believes the Court should be and as such he may again use the possibility of stacking the Court to make the activist Court that he would create which would be a legacy left behind changing the balance and make up of the Court for years to come. A move that is not out of the rhelm of possibility for at least the next nearly two years while Obama has the political strength in the Senate. Knowing that the 60 vote strength could change against him in the 2010 mid term election.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 8:54 AM
12 Comments:
Obama's modern day role model Chavez stacked the courts too.
This site is an April Fools prank right?
It's so well done it almost seems like a real the sky is always falling conservative bullshyt site
thanks for the laughs have a great day
The idiot who hasn't the guts to leave a name when commenting and doesn't have the brains to understand he/she can make one up, is probably the same one who left a comment on my post about my dental problems calling me a racist. I guess far left morons don't go to the dentist? I couldn't figure it out so I just deleted it. I think they must be shooting up.
How strange that they're so angry when their side won. I suppose they just can't help being obnoxious. It's their birthright! LOL!
Yes, Ken, we knew Obama would stack the courts if given half-a-chance, and now he's got the chance. I wonder if most Americans even understand the importance of the Supreme Court? I'm fed up with ignorance even more than I am with the liberals!
Blessings.
Thats not what Obama said about what the courts are for. He said that the civil rights movement depended on the court TOO MUCH, tha the court is for the enforcement of "negative rights" not for welfare, health care, etc... You have it backwards.
Negative rights - what the governemnt cant do, not what youtink it should do. Thats esentially what he said, I think thats pretty clear.
Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh, because he has the same ... interpretation as you do, and he's completely screwed up about this.
Anonymous, his actual statement was that the Constitution was a ," of negative liberties," that states what the government cannot do but not what it must do.
The Founders never intended for government ot do for the people and that is why the Constitution states what the government cannot do thus limiting it power over the people.
Next Obama stated that the court did not exceed its , "Constitutional restraints," concerning redistribution of wealth and as far as Obama was concerned it di not go far enough thus in his opinion was one of the failures of the civil rights legislation.
You are combining two seperate statements that were made in an interview on Chicago public radio in 2005.
The first refering to his idea that the Constitution consited of negative liberties and the second on the short coming of civil rights legislation because the courts did not exceed their Constitutional restraints.
Gayle, whether he will use the political capital to increase the number of justices and stack the court is a distinct possibility if the Constituional challenges that will come defeat his legislative intiatives at SCOTUS.
I truly believe that he wants to leave an activist Court as his legacy, because that is how he views the Court. Legislating from the bench is ok by Obama. The only way he can shape a Court different from its current make up, is for Roberts, Scalia, Altio or Thomas to retire or die while still on the bench.
Otherwise he will be replacing a liberal for a liberal with no sigificant change to the Court as will be the case with the Souter replacement. So the only way he can be assured of reshaping the Court is by adding to its number with judges who think as he does.
Mike, I agree he does seem to follow Chavez his new found buddy and that is exactely what Chavez did...stack the court.
Anonymous believes Rush is screwed up. LOL! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I truly have a problem with Anonymous commenters. You can't even tell whether they are the same people or not unless you check out their IP number. It gets confusing.
I heard the same PBS interview and I didnt hear it the way you did. I think maybe youre trying to put a negative spin on it. Limbaugh even tries to spin the idea of "negative rights" negatively, which shows how much his bias blinds him. Im basically libertarian and negative rights is a proper term and the correct way to interpret the Bill of Rights. He sated categorically that the Constitution if "a charter of negative rights". Positve rights would be right to health care, food, shelter, etc...
He did not suggest that the court hasnt gone far enough. He said that it'd be better if the civil rights movement (liberals, socialists if you wnt to call them that) use the legislative process because the courts are not for that ("positive rights"). I think you have a bias thats not allowing you to be objective about what he said. Thats Limbaughs problem too; you may be listening to him too much.
Im the 2nd Anon, not the one that called your site BS.
Good luck with your site.
First Anon, I seldom because of work have an opportunity to listen to Rush except in snippets. Also I do not and never have depended on Rush or anyone else to decide how I view or look at anything. I decide and research on my own accord and my thoughts and opinions are of my own making and not established by who I listen to etc.
Obama stated that the Constitution was, "a charter of negative liberties." This description poses a problem for me because stating that the Cobstitution only addresses what the government must not do and not what it should to was intentional by the Founders because they did not believe that government was the answer to individual responsibility of citizens.
The entire reason for the Constitution was to establish by law the limits of government and establish what the government could not do allowing freedom from control or oppression of government. This is not a negative liberty but a positive freedom allowing citizens to strive and succeed without government intervention or interference.
The Founders did not state what the government, "must do," on our behalf because they did not intend for the government to do anything on our behalf thus allowing us the freedom to do for ourselves without government getting in the way.
Obama stated that the Warren Court did not,"break free from the essential constraints," of the Constitution and as such the courts failed in defining wealth redistrubution in civil rights legislation.
Those constraints were not intended to be broken free from and redistribution of wealth is unconstituional in the fact that it requires government to destribute money earned by another which is against the very essence of who we are and the principle of individual responsibility and personal achievment based on individual freedom to achieve according to our own abilities and talents.
A text of Obama's full quote can be found here, http://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=5878216
Thanks for visiting my site and the well wishes. Ken
Now that the anti-science, superstition-based initiative presidency is behind us, we need Manhattan projects to make us great again and boost us out of this Grotesque Depression. First we must provide free advertising-based wireless internet to everyone to end land line monopolies. Then we must criscross the land with high speed rail. Because bovine flatulence is the major source of greenhouse gases, we must develop home growable microbes to provide all of our protein. Then we must create microbes which turn our sewage and waste into fuel right at home. This will end energy monopoly by putting fuel in our hands. We must address that most illness starts from behavior, especially from parents. Since paranoid schizophrenia is the cause of racism, bigotry, homelessness, terrorism, ignorance, exploitation and criminality, we must provide put the appropriate medications, like lithium, in the water supply and require dangerous wingnuts who refuse free mental health care to be implanted with drug release devices. Churches should be licensed to reduce supersition and all clergy dealing with small children should be psychiatrically monitored to prevent molesting. Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh were the ultimate superstition based initiatives. Aborting future terrorists and sterilizing their parents is the most effective homeland security. Preganancy is a shelfish, environmentally desturctive act and must be punished, not rewarded with benefits, preference and leave. Widen navigation straits (Gibraltar, Suez, Malacca, Danube, Panama and Hellspont) with deep nukes to prevent war. In order to fund this we must nationalize the entire financial, electrical and transportation system and extinguish the silly feudal notion that each industry should be regulated by its peers. Technology mandates a transformation of tax subsidies from feudal forecloseable debt to risk sharing equity. Real estate and insurance, the engines of feudalism, must be brought under the Federal Reserve so we may replace all buildings with hazardous materials to provide public works. Insects, flooding and fire spread asbestos, lead and mold which prematurely disables the disadvantaged. Disposable manufactured housing assures children are not prematurely disabled and disadvantaged. Because feudalism is the threat to progress everywhere, we must abolish large land holdings by farmers, foresters or religions and instead make all such large landholding part of the forest service so our trees may diminish greenhouse gases. Darwin led to the worst colonial, militarist, attrocity and stock market abuses in history - Lamarkian inhertiance and mitochondrial DNA show that Darwin was not all he is crackered up to be. We must abolish executive pay and make sure all employees in a company are all paid equally. We must abolish this exploitative idea of trade and monopoly and make every manufactured disposable cottage self sufficient through the microbes we invent. Southern Oligarchs destroyed the Democarts in the sixties and destroyed the Republicans this decade - they would not allow viable candidates like Colin Powell, Mitt Romney or Condi Rice to even be considered!
It is perfect time to make some plans for the future and it's time to be happy. I've read this post and if I
could I want to suggest you few interesting things or advice.
Perhaps you can write next articles referring to this article.
I desire to read more things about it!
Feel free to surf to my blog - registry cleaner software
Post a Comment
<< Home