homersapien 6,147 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 A little history on "packing" the court: Opinion by Joe Scarborough Columnist Oct. 15, 2020 Deep suspicion surrounded the new president and his plans for the Supreme Court. He had been attacking the high court’s rulings for years and even groused publicly nine months after being sworn in that “the country generally has outgrown our present judicial system.” His future secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, bitterly complained to his predecessor that the new president was certain to “affect the future doctrines of the Court.” Abraham Lincoln confirmed his opponents’ worst suspicions when he moved against the Supreme Court by signing the Judiciary Act of 1862, adding a 10th justice to the court. Following his assassination, Republicans in Congress reduced that number to seven in an effort to thwart Lincoln’s Democratic successor. Republicans then added two justices after winning back the White House in 1869. Thanks in part to these maneuvers, the party of Lincoln would control the highest court in the land for the remainder of the 19th century and for the first 40 years of the next century. By 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt had had enough, but his effort to expand the court was rebuffed by members of his own party. Still, a president working with Congress to change the Supreme Court’s size has a rich historical tradition that is both constitutionally protected and backed by 231 years of precedent. If Joe Biden were to propose such a change, constitutional originalists would surely be his most aggressive supporters. As Amy Coney Barrett said in Senate testimony this week, the Constitution has “the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.” Even before every state ratified America’s founding charter, George Washington signed a bill that placed just six justices on the Supreme Court. The second president, John Adams, reduced that number to five. Thomas Jefferson increased that number to seven. And the man who inspired the term “Jacksonian Democracy” added two more justices in 1837. Given such a powerful legacy, originalists, Republican politicians and right-wing bloggers would never dare suggest that adjusting the Supreme Court’s size was anything other than constitutional and consistent with the republic’s oldest traditions. To do so would condemn as un-American the Father of our Country, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the first president to live in the White House. How would Barrett respond to such slander? These men were, after all, present at the creation of our constitutional republic. The founding document “doesn’t change over time,” Barrett exclaimed, “and it isn’t up to me to update or infuse my own policy views into it.” By that standard and the actions of the Founding Fathers, there is no good-faith constitutional argument against the future addition of Supreme Court justices. Those in the party of Trump will thus be forced to present themselves as the protectors of America’s political norms in opposing such an act. This approach would be laughable. After all, Republicans continue supporting a president who has said Article II gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president”; questioned the legitimacy of federal judges; used the Stalinist smear “enemy of the people” against the free press; refused to condemn white supremacists; told “Second Amendment people” they could stop Hillary Clinton from appointing judges; sided with an ex-KGB agent over America’s intelligence community; attacked military leaders as “losers”; undermined America’s democratic process by proclaiming it to be “rigged”; and refused to guarantee the peaceful transfer of power. Beyond Trump’s multitude of sins against democracy, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would then have to account for his own trashing of Senate traditions before positing himself as the protector of political norms. The American people will never buy it. By their own actions, these radical Republicans have no standing to protest future changes to the court’s makeup. They have made their own bed. Now it is time for them to sleep in it. 1 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NolaAuTiger 2,833 Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 13 hours ago, homersapien said: there is no good-faith constitutional argument against the future addition of Supreme Court justices. Who has said different? No meaningful opinions against packing the court are based on interpretative methodology. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jj3jordan 615 Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 Pretty sure if Trump gets re-elected and adds 2 or 4 new justices our friends homer, fiddy, and others will mildly protest. Also FWIW Joke is on no ones "listen to" list. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NolaAuTiger 2,833 Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said: Pretty sure if Trump gets re-elected and adds 2 or 4 new justices our friends homer, fiddy, and others will mildly protest. As would I. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AUFAN78 2,505 Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 30 minutes ago, jj3jordan said: Pretty sure if Trump gets re-elected and adds 2 or 4 new justices our friends homer, fiddy, and others will mildly protest. Also FWIW Joke is on no ones "listen to" list. I'm convinced homer and fidy are the same person. Don't fall for the trick. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
homersapien 6,147 Posted October 17, 2020 Author Share Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said: Who has said different? No meaningful opinions against packing the court are based on interpretative methodology. No one, as far as I know. I don't understand what you mean by the second sentence - you'll need to explain. Thanks. Edited October 17, 2020 by homersapien 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Elephant Tipper 143 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 Here's a little history lesson for you gomer, the Justices don't want packing of the court. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NolaAuTiger 2,833 Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 On 10/16/2020 at 11:09 PM, homersapien said: No one, as far as I know. I don't understand what you mean by the second sentence - you'll need to explain. Thanks. Sorry - just getting to this now. In short, an originalist is one who adheres to originalism. The latter term, in turn, connotes one’s interpretative philosophy regarding Constitutional texts. As to the issue of packing the Court, I fail to see how a meaningful position on it is necessarily informed by one’s interpretive methodology. Ostensibly, the article is intended to be a “gotcha” regarding originalists. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AURex 1,026 Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 (edited) Well, if we are talking about real originalism as being the words and intent of the Constitution as it was originally signed, women would not be permitted to vote (and certainly would not be able to hold any sort of government office), married women had no property rights (alyhjough they could inherit property) and unmarried women could own property but were usually poor, only members of government-sponsored militias (state or federal) armed forces) would be permitted to have firearms, there would be no federal or state support for religious endeavors of any kind, the entire concept of civil liberties would disappear, slavery would be legal, etc, etc. Nobody since Justice Black actually adheres to that concept of originalism. In current parlance, the use of the term "originalism" is simply a code word for conservatives to interpret law as they see fit according to their conservative ideology, making up whatever historical evidence supports their ideological position. If the notion of originalism is expanded to include the Amendments that came later, this provides the courts more freedom in interpreting the Constitution, because then it is no longer limited to the time and words of the Founding Fathers. Still, even this interpretation of originalism provides conservatives an avenue to restrict individual freedom, human right, civil liberties, etc. As for interjecting religion into law, this is a realm of complete BS as to the intent of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and a bunch of mumbo-jumbo regarding social issues at the time of the framing. It has created a myth about the Christian State that has corrupted legal decision making as well as political legislation for decades. This fake history has entered into the ideology of originalism, corrupting it to the detriment of our Great Republic. Edited November 11, 2020 by AURex 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NolaAuTiger 2,833 Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 14 hours ago, AURex said: Well, if we are talking about real originalism as being the words and intent of the Constitution as it was originally signed, women would not be permitted to vote (and certainly would not be able to hold any sort of government office), married women had no property rights (alyhjough they could inherit property) and unmarried women could own property but were usually poor, only members of government-sponsored militias (state or federal) armed forces) would be permitted to have firearms, there would be no federal or state support for religious endeavors of any kind, the entire concept of civil liberties would disappear, slavery would be legal, etc, etc. Nobody since Justice Black actually adheres to that concept of originalism. In current parlance, the use of the term "originalism" is simply a code word for conservatives to interpret law as they see fit according to their conservative ideology, making up whatever historical evidence supports their ideological position. If the notion of originalism is expanded to include the Amendments that came later, this provides the courts more freedom in interpreting the Constitution, because then it is no longer limited to the time and words of the Founding Fathers. Still, even this interpretation of originalism provides conservatives an avenue to restrict individual freedom, human right, civil liberties, etc. As for interjecting religion into law, this is a realm of complete BS as to the intent of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and a bunch of mumbo-jumbo regarding social issues at the time of the framing. It has created a myth about the Christian State that has corrupted legal decision making as well as political legislation for decades. This fake history has entered into the ideology of originalism, corrupting it to the detriment of our Great Republic. You would do well to read the following: https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Textbooks/Scalia-and-Garners-Reading-Law-The-Interpretation-of-Legal-Texts/p/100022429 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.