I think they had an excellent discussion. However, there are several things that I would like to bring up. 1-You did mention the fact that the Democrats had 76 Senators and 300+ Representatives in the House. However, what I didn't hear was the how The 16 Republicans Senators reacted to the Court Packing Proposal. (If they supported the proposal, then FDR might be able to claim "bipartisan support". If they opposed the plan, then they would come across as extremists. If they take no stance, then the various Democratic factions can argue about the plan..and at the end of the day, "pick up the pieces". FDR would only need 49 out of 76 Democratic Senators (assuming that the Republicans and Independents provided a unified front). Republican opposition, in a public forum, might actually unify the Democrats more into passing Court packing legislation. If the Democratic Party having such a "grand coalition", there would eventually be factions within the party which would oppose certain types of New Deal legislation. For example, how far would Southern Conservative Democrats, who dominated the key committees in both houses of Congress "go along" with supporting FDR? FDR is the leader of the party. He was elected with the largest majority at the time for a second term. However, the South was dominated by the Democratic Party. A Democrat elected to the Congress, could almost be serving "for life", unless that member is defeated in the party Primaries, when their up for reelection. 2-FDR tried to "purge" some of the opposition in the Democratic Party, by supporting challengers to the incumbents seeking reelection. For example, in 1938, he tried to get Senator Walter George of Georgia defeated for reelection, but that backfired. George was a senior member of both the Finance and Foreign Relations Committee. Also, FDR almost could claim Georgia as a "second home", because he frequently went to Warm Springs. I'm thinking the attempted purge, more than the Court Packing Plan helped create the "Conservative Coalition" of Southern Democrats and Republicans from the West and Midwest. 3-One major reason why the Court Packing plan failed was the death of its key proponent, Senate Majority Leader Joe Robinson. However, what wasn't stated, was the belief that Robinson was to get the first Supreme Court Seat. At the time, it was rare for US Senators to oppose a Senator (or former Senator) to a Federal Job which requires Senate Confirmation (such as the Cabinet or Federal Judgeships). 4-You mentioned the fact that by the end of the Roosevelt-Truman years, that all 9 seats on the Supreme Court were filled by appointees of the two Presidents. You also mentioned that there were still divisions within Court, after the FDR-Truman years. However, what wasn't mentioned was the fact that FDR and Truman couldn't "stack" the Courts with 9 liberals. As mentioned earlier, the Democratic Party had a broad coalition..and the two Presidents had to put representatives of those various factions onto the Court. (I'm including geography, in terms of factions.) For example, FDR nominated Bill Douglas in 1939 and then Jimmy Byrnes, in 1941..this provided a geographical balance. Harry Truman placed a Republican Conservative, Harold Burton, on the Court, in order to have more Republican representation on the Court. Some Justices ideology shifted from Liberal to Conservative, as the years pass. And the Truman Justices tended to be more conservative.. If Biden attempted and succeeded in "Court Packing", his vision of diversity would be more in terms of sex, race and/or sexual orientation, than of a ideological perspective. He could theoretically, get legislation passed by both houses of Congress, which could expand the Court, by the end of 2022 (before the Republican takeover of the House). Then, Biden could get several new Justices on the Court, in 2023, provided that the Democrats and Independents, who sit with the Democrats, stand united in the confirmation, with a 51 seat majority. Hypothetically, they could increase the Court to 13 Justices, giving the Liberal Justices a solid 7 to 6 majority. A Democratic Controlled Congress could, in theory, pass a bill that would expand the Court to 13 Justices by Christmas, go into recess..and Biden could do recess appointments for 4 Supreme Court Justices in the interim. That would be very unlikely to happen, because of the public outlash..and Republicans might claim, that they could do a similar measure if they control the Presidency and Congress on a later date.
It didn’t happen, court packing today. The 1930’s public was with FDR about the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority immense power especially during the Great Depression. It did take 1 Justice to change their vote on big cases. Once that Justice started to take down the temperature of “court packing” and “public outrage” on the Supreme Court. It was no longer needed. I can’t say that about today’s Supreme Court 6-3 enormous power, the Institution itself has very low public respect. The confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett sealed the 5-4 conservative majority and weakened Chief Justice Robert’s “swing” vote power. I don’t see any statute being created to increase Justice or setting term limits or decreasing the size of the Court. Even Governor George Wallace attacked the Supreme Court for raw judicial power and he wanted to “unpack” the Court in the 1960’s. The only thing I can see that is more realistically is that a sitting Justice will retire or die on the bench unexpectedly or will be forced to step down due to health problems like Thurgood Marshall. Based on age, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito could be one of those. The next decades 30-40 years it will be the Justice Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett era Court.
@@rpdbu8250 The Amy Coney Barrett confirmation case was "the tip of the iceburg", when it came to confirmation politics. Presidents have the right to nominate the Justices, but the Senate has the right to choose how fast and how thorough, the Senate goes into confirming a nominee. Presidents also have to exercise the power of making a recess appointment (Obama failed to use that power in the 2016 Supreme Court fight. If he exercised that power, Obama could have Garland on the Court for a year...) It's more of a disrespect of the people who represent the institutions, at that particular moment in history..
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
I think they had an excellent discussion. However, there are several things that I would like to bring up.
1-You did mention the fact that the Democrats had 76 Senators and 300+ Representatives in the House. However, what I didn't hear was the how The 16 Republicans Senators reacted to the Court Packing Proposal. (If they supported the proposal, then FDR might be able to claim "bipartisan support". If they opposed the plan, then they would come across as extremists. If they take no stance, then the various Democratic factions can argue about the plan..and at the end of the day, "pick up the pieces". FDR would only need 49 out of 76 Democratic Senators (assuming that the Republicans and Independents provided a unified front). Republican opposition, in a public forum, might actually unify the Democrats more into passing Court packing legislation.
If the Democratic Party having such a "grand coalition", there would eventually be factions within the party which would oppose certain types of New Deal legislation. For example, how far would Southern Conservative Democrats, who dominated the key committees in both houses of Congress "go along" with supporting FDR? FDR is the leader of the party. He was elected with the largest majority at the time for a second term. However, the South was dominated by the Democratic Party. A Democrat elected to the Congress, could almost be serving "for life", unless that member is defeated in the party Primaries, when their up for reelection.
2-FDR tried to "purge" some of the opposition in the Democratic Party, by supporting challengers to the incumbents seeking reelection. For example, in 1938, he tried to get Senator Walter George of Georgia defeated for reelection, but that backfired. George was a senior member of both the Finance and Foreign Relations Committee. Also, FDR almost could claim Georgia as a "second home", because he frequently went to Warm Springs. I'm thinking the attempted purge, more than the Court Packing Plan helped create the "Conservative Coalition" of Southern Democrats and Republicans from the West and Midwest.
3-One major reason why the Court Packing plan failed was the death of its key proponent, Senate Majority Leader Joe Robinson. However, what wasn't stated, was the belief that Robinson was to get the first Supreme Court Seat. At the time, it was rare for US Senators to oppose a Senator (or former Senator) to a Federal Job which requires Senate Confirmation (such as the Cabinet or Federal Judgeships).
4-You mentioned the fact that by the end of the Roosevelt-Truman years, that all 9 seats on the Supreme Court were filled by appointees of the two Presidents. You also mentioned that there were still divisions within Court, after the FDR-Truman years. However, what wasn't mentioned was the fact that FDR and Truman couldn't "stack" the Courts with 9 liberals. As mentioned earlier, the Democratic Party had a broad coalition..and the two Presidents had to put representatives of those various factions onto the Court. (I'm including geography, in terms of factions.) For example, FDR nominated Bill Douglas in 1939 and then Jimmy Byrnes, in 1941..this provided a geographical balance. Harry Truman placed a Republican Conservative, Harold Burton, on the Court, in order to have more Republican representation on the Court. Some Justices ideology shifted from Liberal to Conservative, as the years pass. And the Truman Justices tended to be more conservative..
If Biden attempted and succeeded in "Court Packing", his vision of diversity would be more in terms of sex, race and/or sexual orientation, than of a ideological perspective.
He could theoretically, get legislation passed by both houses of Congress, which could expand the Court, by the end of 2022 (before the Republican takeover of the House). Then, Biden could get several new Justices on the Court, in 2023, provided that the Democrats and Independents, who sit with the Democrats, stand united in the confirmation, with a 51 seat majority. Hypothetically, they could increase the Court to 13 Justices, giving the Liberal Justices a solid 7 to 6 majority. A Democratic Controlled Congress could, in theory, pass a bill that would expand the Court to 13 Justices by Christmas, go into recess..and Biden could do recess appointments for 4 Supreme Court Justices in the interim. That would be very unlikely to happen, because of the public outlash..and Republicans might claim, that they could do a similar measure if they control the Presidency and Congress on a later date.
It didn’t happen, court packing today. The 1930’s public was with FDR about the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority immense power especially during the Great Depression. It did take 1 Justice to change their vote on big cases. Once that Justice started to take down the temperature of “court packing” and “public outrage” on the Supreme Court. It was no longer needed.
I can’t say that about today’s Supreme Court 6-3 enormous power, the Institution itself has very low public respect. The confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett sealed the 5-4 conservative majority and weakened Chief Justice Robert’s “swing” vote power. I don’t see any statute being created to increase Justice or setting term limits or decreasing the size of the Court.
Even Governor George Wallace attacked the Supreme Court for raw judicial power and he wanted to “unpack” the Court in the 1960’s.
The only thing I can see that is more realistically is that a sitting Justice will retire or die on the bench unexpectedly or will be forced to step down due to health problems like Thurgood Marshall. Based on age, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito could be one of those. The next decades 30-40 years it will be the Justice Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett era Court.
@@rpdbu8250 The Amy Coney Barrett confirmation case was "the tip of the iceburg", when it came to confirmation politics.
Presidents have the right to nominate the Justices, but the Senate has the right to choose how fast and how thorough, the Senate goes into confirming a nominee.
Presidents also have to exercise the power of making a recess appointment (Obama failed to use that power in the 2016 Supreme Court fight. If he exercised that power, Obama could have Garland on the Court for a year...)
It's more of a disrespect of the people who represent the institutions, at that particular moment in history..