Monday, July 9

You really need to watch this vid: Smug socialist prof claims Dems should "pack the court" when they regain control

You simply must see this clip.  It's a young, insufferably smug, socialist Hahvahd professor (is there any other kind?), Ian Samuel, being interviewed by Tucker Carlson--who is far and away the most skilled debater on any network.

Background:  Twelve days ago, with the prospect of president Trump nominating a new Supreme Court justice, Samuel tweeted

If that came up blurry he wrote
Pack the courts [sic] as soon as we get the chance. "Pack the courts" [sic] should be a phrase on par with "Abolish ICE."  
If you're under 50 or so you almost certainly don't have any idea what Samuel means by this.  And of course that's not your fault:  It was a huge constitutional crisis 80 years ago, and accordingly, your schools should have told you the details.  Of course they didn't, because the crisis was triggered by a Democrat president revered by the Left:  FDR.  I'll explain that at the end of this post.

Packing the court means expanding the number of members.  The socialist professor--devastated because the court currently has a one-vote conservative edge (5-4) and despairing over a likely conservative nomination by the president, believes it's simply NOT FAIR that the Left doesn't have a majority on the court.

His solution is classic Marxism:  The next Democrat president should add however many new justices are needed to give the Left a majority again!

Isn't that swell, folks?  Absolutely elegant in its simplicity.  A classic Hahvahd / socialist solution:  If you don't have a legitimate majority, create one by decree.  Sorta like Obozo using executive orders to command ICE not to enforce valid U.S. immigration law.  Or declaring that a million young illegals could stay in the U.S. indefinitely, again in violation of valid law.  Cool, huh.

Tucker deftly lays bare the Marxist-thug core of the professor's demand.  But you need to watch the Hahvahd socialist's face as he blathers.  In particular, watch his eyes and his smirk.  Those will teach you more about the core of the Left than 50,000 words.

Okay, here's the deal on FDR's attempt to "pack the court":
  FDR had proposed several ideas that his advisors said would stimulate the economy devastated by the Great Depression after the stock market crash of 1929.  Unfortunately, nothing in the Constitution allowed the government to enact several of these ideas, and they were ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

But Roosevelt--who had a friendly demeanor--was quite cunning when it came to playing Dem politics, so he devised a way to get the Court to approve the programs they'd found unconstitutional:  He proposed to increase the number of justices on the court.

He got Democrats in congress to introduce the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which authorized the president to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court whenever a sitting justice reached the age of 70 years and 6 months.

Democrats pointed out that the Constitution says nothing about how many judges the Court should have.  That's true, but in the Judiciary Act of 1869 Congress had established that the Supreme Court would consist of nine justices.  But with the Constitution silent on that point, Democrats claimed Congress had the power to change the number to any other number. 

While no one disputed that any law congress made could be amended or repealed, many members of both parties correctly saw the bill as an attempt to stack the court with judges who, having been appointed by Roosevelt, would presumably have a more friendly view of the New Deal programs that a majority of the existing court had judged unconstitutional.  It was very close to "buying a judge."

Ultimately Roosevelt's bill failed to be approved by congress, being held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee for 165 days.  Interestingly, the man responsible for this was the committee's chairman, who was...a Democrat.

Of course this was back in the days when Democrats regarded the Constitution as more important than mere party loyalty.  Those days are long gone.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home