The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Rep. Jerry Nadler to Introduce a Court-Packing Bill to Give Biden 4 Extra Supreme Court Nominations
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Vox:

A new bill would add 4 seats to the Supreme Court
It’s on!

By Ian Millhiser Apr 14, 2021, 9:00pm EDT

Four Democratic members of Congress plan to introduce legislation that would add four seats to the Supreme Court, which would, if passed, allow President Biden to immediately name four individuals to fill those seats and give Democrats a 7-6 majority.

The bill, which is being introduced by Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Hank Johnson (D-GA), and Mondaire Jones (D-NY) in the House and by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) in the Senate, is called the Judiciary Act of 2021, and it is very brief. It amends a provision of federal law providing that the Supreme Court consist of a chief justice and eight associate justices to read that the Court shall consist of ‘‘a Chief Justice of the United States and twelve associate justices, any eight of whom shall constitute a quorum.”

Although the Constitution provides that there must be a Supreme Court, it leaves the question of how many justices shall sit on that Court to Congress. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court originally had six seats, and it briefly had 10 seats under President Lincoln.

Realistically, the bill is unlikely to pass anytime soon. Until recently, adding seats to the Supreme Court was considered a very radical tactic — President Franklin Roosevelt proposed similar legislation in 1937, and it did not end well for him. President Biden has in the past expressed reluctance to add seats to the Court.

But the politics of Supreme Court reform have moved very quickly in recent years, and it’s possible to imagine a critical mass of lawmakers rallying behind Court expansion if a majority of the current justices hand down decisions that are likely to outrage Democrats, such as a decision neutralizing what remains of the Voting Rights Act.

People always say that FDR’s court-packing plan of 1937 did not end well for him, but it bullied the Supreme Court into finally approving his New Deal policies.

In general, threatening to pack can be a pretty effective tactic for getting the other side to give in: e.g., the Tory-dominated House of Lords kept vetoing the Liberal Party’s reforms before WWI until PM Asquith got King George V to agree to create over 400 new Liberal peers if the House of Lords didn’t vote to give up its permanent veto, which it then narrowly did.

 
Hide 91 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. People always say that FDR’s court-packing plan of 1937 did not end well for him, but it bullied the Supreme Court into finally approving his New Deal policies.

    For some reason, few on this site complain.

  2. Rosie says:

    I would consider such a move tantamount to an outright repudiation of Constitutional restraints justifying a response in kind. It’s not technically that, but it is such an egregious violation of judicial independence that it would effectively eliminate the judiciary as a separate branch.

  3. Anonymous[224] • Disclaimer says:

    It doesn’t really matter. As black-pilled E. Michael Jones always points out, the federal courts’ role is to enforce the wishes of the oligarchs. The Supreme Court’s role is to come up with legal mumbo jumbo to make the wishes of the oligarchs the law of the land. The tyranny of the minority.

    Most Americans were against gay marriage. Tough, the oligarchs wanted it so the Supreme Court made it the law of the land.

    We’ve already seen Kavanaugh and ACB (“I cried over George Floyd’s death… my black children”) betray Trump and 74 million-125 million Americans by not bothering to even hear the post-election fraud cases. But what does it really matter that 125 million don’t trust the “democratic” process.

    America is “on the clock”, as oncologists say about stage 4 patients.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  4. Is Nadless suffering the Sharpton shrink?

    Or has it just descended below the belt?

    His district resembles Norway– but only on a map:

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Hibernian
    , @3g4me
  5. As LRC reminds us, it’s just ridiculous how 9 politically appointed, lawyer-justices protected by lifetime tenure think they outsmart the collective intelligence of Congress, 50 state governments, and 330M Americans.

    Congress should show them who’s boss by abolishing the federal courts (its own creation). Since the USC doesn’t specify a minimum, Congress should make them look ridiculous by reducing the number to 1.

    Still, dilution of the power of the justices is appropriate and long overdue. Influence drops as 1/n. Five more midget-lawyers would get their attention (.11 -> .07). But to truly diminish them, the number should be increased to 99 (.01).

    As a believer in reform and democracy, I see no good reason why we shouldn’t up the number to ~200M non-lawyers.

    • Agree: ScarletNumber
  6. Right wingers need to stop clinging to crazy constitutional technicalities and caveats and move on to thinking about how they can create a country that guarantees their interests without relying on (increasingly and untenably) undemocratic arbitrary flimflam like the electoral college and judicial review.

    Shilling for the Supreme Court because they maybe hate your guts and have it in for you slightly less than the voting population as a whole is particularly silly.

    Admit that this country is fucked and move on while white people are still actually capable of building a new society worth living in.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Travis
  7. And the Judiciary Act of 2031 will want a Chief Justice and 15 associate justices, 12 of whom shall make a quorum.

  8. @Rosie

    I would consider such a move tantamount to an outright repudiation of Constitutional restraints justifying a response in kind.

    An in-kind response would be using democratic power to overpower some non democratic element of the government. Republicans don’t have democratic power. What they have is a smaller number of voters propped up by the electoral college and supreme court, which is what the democrats are going to get rid of because they are, at least relatively, smart and competent.

    What whites as a whole have as trump card is a productive wealth generating capacity that is being drained off to support other groups. But the most productive whites are the ones least interested in renogiating that relationship so that it benefits whites more.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @PhysicistDave
  9. But the politics of Supreme Court reform have moved very quickly in recent years, and it’s possible to imagine a critical mass of lawmakers rallying behind Court expansion if a majority of the current justices hand down decisions that are likely to outrage Democrats, such as a decision neutralizing what remains of the Voting Rights Act.

    So presumably, the Supreme Court can now Judicially Review this act of Congress like they apparently can with any other law, to see if it is in keeping with whatever interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is currently in fashion within the Beltway.

    Not that they have the ‘nads for it—well, Thomas and Alito probably do, maybe Gorusch and Cavanaugh. Unfortunately, the largest ‘nads seem to be on the deformed Jewish homonculus Nadler.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  10. Rosie says:
    @Almost Missouri

    So presumably, the Supreme Court can now Judicially Review this act of Congress like they apparently can with any other law,

    That’s a damned good point.

    to see if it is in keeping with whatever interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is currently in fashion within the Beltway.

    But they wouldn’t use the 14th. Article III, I assume.

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

    If Congress uses court-packing to interfere with the Judiciary, then the judicial power isn’t vested in one SC.

    • Disagree: Abolish_public_education
  11. Rosie says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    An in-kind response would be using democratic power to overpower some non democratic element of the government.

    OK then I maintain it would justify a non-in-kind response of ignoring any procedural requirement we don’t like.

    • Thanks: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
  12. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:

    This bill is dead. It needs Joe Manchin’s vote to pass the Senate and he’s not going to support it. It might not even pass the House. The swing-state Dems may be too scared to overthrow the system.

    By the way, it looks like Pelosi is heading for retirement. She’s put out a memoir and even sneers at the Squad in it. It looks like she intends to exit before 2022.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @She should
  13. The crowd that obsessed over abortion and other “faith & values” issues to the detriment of racial loyalty are about to lose their pet issues forever.

    The same is true for autistic libertarians.

    Don’t come to us looking for sympathy.

  14. anon[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    That district map should be used to illustrate a post on Jerrymandering (yeah, I know, it is usually spelled Gerrymandering).

  15. @Rosie

    OK then I maintain it would justify a non-in-kind response of ignoring any procedural requirement we don’t like.

    But you don’t have the power in the legislature (or anywhere else) to do that. That’s my whole point.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  16. @Reg Cæsar

    I will. FDR is by far the worst most disastrous President is US history. All of our current problems now, the death of our country, descend from his bloated presumptuous term. The war with Japan was unnecessary (as was the War in Europe), and he got in it to save himself from the depression that he couldn’t figure out. The idea of going to war and losing 291,557 US soldiers to save your failing economy is one sick action. FDR was one sick dude, and it is in punishment of his leadership that our country is almost lost. He’s probably suffering now for what he did to us.

  17. unit472 says:

    Could backfire. Doubt the Dems could pass this . select 4 nominees, and get them through the Senate before the 2022 election. What happens if they get this court expansion passed into law and, say, a Democrat senator or a couple of Democrat Representatives die. Doubt this is THE ISSUE, the Dems want to have a referendum on for the 22 election and if they lose the House and Senate their plan will go nowhere but those still ‘live’ Scotus seats could end up in hands of the GOP in 2024

  18. @anon14324124

    FDR is by far the worst most disastrous President is US history.

    The civil war killed more than twice as many Americans as WWII. And the country recovered just fine from both Lincoln and FDR. And FDR did a lot of good instituting the kinds of reforms to soften and control capitalism that every country worth living in either already had already done or would do later.

  19. @Guy De Champlagne

    Guy De Champlagne wrote:

    What [the GOP has] is a smaller number of voters propped up by the electoral college and supreme court, which is what the democrats are going to get rid of because they are, at least relatively, smart and competent.

    How exactly do you think the Dems can get rid of the Electoral College? Requires a Constitutional amendment and therefore 3/4 of the states. And why would Montana, Idaho, Alaska, the Dakotas, et al. agree to this?

    I take it you never took a class in US Gov?

  20. unit472 says:
    @anon14324124

    That 291.000 dead figure was for ‘Killed In Action’. Total US war deaths were over 400,000 because training accidents were frequent and costly. Still are. Airplanes crash, ships sink and idiots with live ammo are ever present. On balance though WW2 was fought on the cheap given the number of troops involved.

    We don’t think of it Korea or Vietnam as being as vicious and violent these days but they were. I was 17 when the Tet offensive kicked off in Vietnam and the US MACV was reporting 500+ KIA for weeks. That was Iwo Jima or Okinawa scale fighting, especially since many of the wounded would have died with WW2 medical care. I was not looking forward to my 18th birthday.

  21. @Guy De Champlagne

    Guy De Champlagne wrote:

    The civil war killed more than twice as many Americans as WWII. And the country recovered just fine from both Lincoln and FDR.

    Let’s be a bit more accurate: the country has never recovered from the centralization of power, the crony capitalism, and the militaristic federal government encouraged by Lincoln and institutionalized by FDR.

    GDC also wrote:

    And FDR did a lot of good instituting the kinds of reforms to soften and control capitalism that every country worth living in either already had already done or would do later.

    Again, to be more accurate, FDR is the godfather of crony capitalism (the “Blue Eagle,” war profiteers, etc.), of the fiscally unsustainable welfare state, and of the destruction of the dollar (FDR took the country off the gold standard, although the “gold exchange standard” remained for a while).

    Not to mention the internment of Japanese-Americans or all the death in WW II.

    If only Zangara had been a better shot!

    • Agree: Magic Dirt Resident
    • Replies: @Craken
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  22. @Guy De Champlagne

    Guy De Champlagne wrote:

    The civil war killed more than twice as many Americans as WWII. And the country recovered just fine from both Lincoln and FDR.

    Let’s be a bit more accurate: the country has never recovered from the centralization of power, the crony capitalism, and the militaristic federal government encouraged by Lincoln and institutionalized by FDR.

    GDC also wrote:

    And FDR did a lot of good instituting the kinds of reforms to soften and control capitalism that every country worth living in either already had already done or would do later.

    Again, to be more accurate, FDR is the godfather of crony capitalism (the “Blue Eagle,” war profiteers, etc.), of the fiscally unsustainable welfare state, and of the destruction of the dollar (FDR took the country off the gold standard, although the “gold exchange standard” remained for a while).

    Not to mention the internment of Japanese-Americans or all the death in WW II.

    If only Zangara had been a better shot!

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @El Dato
    , @Hibernian
  23. @anon14324124

    I was about to mash [Agree], as I do, but I don’t see anything about the other half of why FDR was a disastrous President. As with the court-packing threats (that, as Mr. Sailer wrote) DID work for him, FDR greatly expanded the Socialism, as he unConstitutionally greatly expanded the size and power of the UR Feral Gov’t.

    Then, only ~3 decades later, the other shoe dropped, as the bastard LBJ made Socialism the new law of the land, and, with his Civil Rites push, a new body of law that competed with the US Constitution.

    So, you are slightly wrong there – FDR was not the “most disastrous” President. He was tied for 1st in that with LBJ.

    • Agree: El Dato
    • Replies: @peterike
    , @res
    , @68W58
  24. anonymous[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    As in secession?

  25. anon[437] • Disclaimer says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    “Right wingers need to stop clinging to crazy constitutional technicalities and caveats and move on to thinking about how they can create a country that guarantees their interests … Admit that this country is fucked and move on while white people are still actually capable of building a new society worth living in.”

    There are — sadly — too many on the right, even those on what the democrat party’s press would say “far right”, who seem immune to this kind of reasoning. Many of these people grew up in a different era and just cannot let it go. They’d rather die in peace under the delusion that all is the same as it once was than to see the truth and act accordingly. Even in the face of literal Bolshevism, and that’s what this is, they do nothing. These tyrants are trying to pack a court with their apparatchiks in order to overthrow the constitution and yet there is no response.

    Where have we seen this before?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_act

    Or maybe they delude themselves into thinking the GOP is going to vote themselves out of this — maybe they’ll take Huey Long’s advice and somehow win enough votes to sweep the government … even though that’s never going to happen with these demographics. Minus the Cuban vote, and the democrats win almost 70% of the Hispanic vote. It won’t matter that polls say Biden is weak on immigration and social issues when large demographics can be manipulated by the regime’s media to vote based on their racial hatred of other Americans. Identity trumps ideology for most people. It’s funny how the same people who make this point with the GOP’s fixation on free markets seem unwilling to accept it for other groups.

    This country is doomed. The boomers will do nothing until Whites are a tiny oppressed minority and the USA is a broke police state where, like South Africa, the ultra rich live behind gated walls with private security and poor Whites live on the margins of society, attacked and berated in all things — doomed to eke out a living with virtually no prospects.

    • Replies: @James J O'Meara
  26. El Dato says:
    @PhysicistDave

    FDR was a great admirer of Mussolini and for good reason. They were of the same mind and proposed the same solutions, and both utterly incompetent at anything except politics, but FDR lied much more openly: promising one thing, then doing another.

    And FDR did a lot of good instituting the kinds of reforms to soften and control capitalism that every country worth living in either already had already done or would do later.

    That’s some high-grade bullshit with undigested beans by Monsieur @Guy De Champlagne right there.

    FDR’s “legacy” got saved by one thing, which he openly thought to participate in, in spite of telling everybody he would stay out of it: WWII. Everybody forgot about this utter failure-in-charge when the nicely finagled “9/11” happened. Playing with your stamp collection instead of picking up the phone to Hawaii, are you, Mister FDR?

    But back to the present. How will the power dynamics turn out? We will see!

    • Replies: @James J O'Meara
  27. anon[437] • Disclaimer says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    LBJ is the worst president in American history. He’s the guy who gave us mass immigration and the Civil Rights cult. Also did Vietnam for good measure, which gave us hippie counterculture. His presidency is the proximate cause of this mess. He was a Southerner, technically — although not claimed. Jefferson Davis’s posthumous revenge?

  28. @PhysicistDave

    By “get rid of” the electoral college and supreme court I meant lesson the benefit it gives to Republicans. As for now, regarding the Supreme Court that means threatening to stack the court and possibly going through with it, and for the electoral college it means introducing new states with electors that will goto democrats.

    Maybe congress will eventually abolish judicial review entirely, which as far as I can tell is allowed by a common sense reading of the constitution, or abolish the electoral college, which isn’t but who cares?

  29. Even in the face of literal Bolshevism, and that’s what this is, they do nothing. These tyrants are trying to pack a court with their apparatchiks in order to overthrow the constitution and yet there is no response.

    How can you accuse others of being mired in the past and then call everything you dislike literal bolshevism? The bolsheviks were the enemy two generations ago at least. Democrats get to call everything they don’t like racism and play with language because meaning is ultimately determined by the cultural organs that they control, but republicans just look stupid when they try it.

    And the people stacking the court are not the tyrants. They’re the people fighting for democracy. America is not the same country and the new Americans want their say. We’re the tyrants.

    If all you can think of is to call them bolsheviks and tyrants then you don’t understand the situation and you’re never going to get anywhere.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  30. Rosie says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    But you don’t have the power in the legislature (or anywhere else) to do that. That’s my whole point.

    OK, then I maintain that anytime populists have such power, say by refusing to step down from power after a stolen election, they avail themselves of it.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
  31. Stogumber says:

    I look at this, above all, as a confirmation of my general thesis that we live in a second “Red Decade”. Which, as I admit, implies that this sad state of affairs may finish in a similar way as the first Red Decade finished (partly by the exhaustion and the sobering of the fanatics).

  32. TyRade says:

    +4 pliant justices to the Supreme Court merely a micro echo of +X million grateful aliens from The South, isn’t it? Democracy, even the supposedly finely balanced and calibrated one like that in the US, is just a game of numbers. Ie truly next to despotism, as Aristotle deduced about 200 years ago.

  33. The Dems know they own the process of counting votes where it really matters, so there is nothing, other than self-restraint … cough… cough … stopping them from packing the SCOTUS.

  34. @PhysicistDave

    Look at all the people who went to school in the US who don’t know that.

  35. Hibernian says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    UWS, Greenwich Village – What could go wrong?

  36. Hibernian says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    And the country recovered just fine from both Lincoln and FDR.

    Yea, we’re still here, so everything’s ok. LOL

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
  37. Hibernian says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Zangara was aiming at Cermak and got him. It was a mob hit. It was done in FDR’s presence as misdirection.

  38. @Hibernian

    We’re still here, but haven’t approached anything like the heights that were reached after Lincoln and FDR but before LBJ (the actual worst president).

    And all the countries actually doing better than US have the kinds of laws that FDR passed that people here think ruined the country.

    Those two things make it really ridiculous to blame FDR.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  39. @Rosie

    Trump didn’t have the power to stay in office if he wanted to. He wouldn’t have had the support of the military or any sector of law enforcement so he would have been dragged out of the white house. On top of that, noone in the rest of the government would have supported him or worked with him. And, on top of everything, millions of people would have taken to the streets and the major economic centers of the country would all grind to a complete standstill.

    Do you have any idea how actual coups work?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  40. Dr. X says:

    which would, if passed, allow President Biden to immediately name four individuals to fill those seats

    I can see it now: first openly gay justice, first transgender justice, first black woman justice, first illegal alien justice…

    • LOL: Hibernian
  41. 3g4me says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    @4 Reg Caesar: At whatever weight, Nadler still looks like tick. Physiognomy is real.

  42. Travis says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    you make a good point. The packing if the Supreme court is just icing on the cake for the Oligarchs. They already control the press and social media and can censor all opposition and anyone who questions the narrative. They control our congress, the courts, our schools,our churches and our military. Most of the Generals are woke. Most CEOs are now woke. All University Presidents are Woke. All police chiefs are woke. Most scientists are now woke.

    There is not an institution in the United States which does dot fully support BLM and the woke agenda. Every Major corporation supports the woke agenda. Most Republicans fully support the woke agenda, globalism and endless wars , open borders and forced inoculations.

  43. 3g4me says:
    @anon14324124

    @17 Anon14324124: FDR was abhorrent, but Woodrow Wilson gives him a run for his money as far as disastrous presidents go. And then there’s saint Lincoln, who destroyed the republic to ‘save’ it. LBJ was a shyster and a crook, and did nothing good, but those who blame black dysfunction and ’60s radicalism on him are ignoring decades of history. In general, most presidents are generally egotists incapable of doing normal work. Democracy is an inherently flawed system (constitution spergs spare me the “we’re a republic” chant) and the universal franchise selects for sly and slick men seeking power and fame.

    In short, this country was founded on a series of fantasies about human nature and political power. It will not end well, but it will end far sooner than most think.

  44. @PhysicistDave

    It never ceases to amaze me that there are intelligent, earnest people who believe that voting, laws and the constitution still matter.

    The majority of people in California, Ireland and Taiwan all voted against gay marriage, but they got it anyway. If the electoral college is deemed to be in the way of “progress”, it will be gone in a heartbeat.

    • Replies: @Matra
  45. @Rosie

    I would consider such a move tantamount to an outright repudiation of Constitutional restraints justifying a response in kind.

    The left has made plenty of egregious moves like this before and it’s never led to a right wing response other than complaining. No reason to expect it will be different this time around.

    it would effectively eliminate the judiciary as a separate branch.

    The judiciary hasn’t been a separate branch for decades, but maybe a power grab this blatant will make a significant number of people realize that fact.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  46. Spect3r says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Thats not true.
    I dont read every article and am far from reading every comment, but i do recall quite some times were people badmouthed FDR.

  47. @anon14324124

    Woodrow Wilson paved the way for what FDR did. American involvement in WW1 made far less sense than WW2 (which probably wouldn’t have happened). WW1 also had a cascading effect on other societal issues. For instance, it created a shortage of labor in the northern cities, which led to the Great Black Migration. We also have Wilson to thank for Puerto Rico and the Income Tax.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  48. peterike says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    So, you are slightly wrong there – FDR was not the “most disastrous” President.

    Don’t forget, FDR was also the onramp for Jewish Communist subversion in American government. Everything else really flows from that.

  49. @Rosie

    it is such an egregious violation of judicial independence that it would effectively eliminate the judiciary as a separate branch

    This would be a feature, not a bug. If the Supreme Court wants to be considered independent, they should start acting that way.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  50. If no one in the GOP trolls Hank Johnson by asking whether adding four Justices would risk tipping the Supreme Court Bench over I’m just going to scream.

    • Thanks: black sea
  51. JMcG says:
    @Anonymous

    The corpse of the USA reached room temperature some time ago.

  52. @John Derbyshire

    The point is to weaken (humiliate!) the totally rogue, federal courts.

    • Eliminate the 600 or so (always expanding) federal judgeships.

    • To be safe, up the # of justices to at least 50M.

    See #5.

  53. anon[171] • Disclaimer says:
    @PhysicistDave

    How exactly do you think the Dems can get rid of the Electoral College?

    Via this end run around it, perhaps?

    https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

    Of course with reliable vote fraud available even this scheme is not necessary.

  54. res says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I think Pincher Martin’s take on the post-court-packing events is worthwhile.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/debate/#comment-4205073

    The politicians, including many FDR supporters, protected the Supreme Court from FDR’s court-packing scheme, but the move still scared enough Justices that they began to adapt their rulings. Soon afterwards, the conservative Justices began retiring/dying off and FDR was able to nominate his own justices. The New Deal also petered out; by the end of FDR’s second term, national security issues began to dominate his administration. FDR also got more nominees on the court. By 1940, FDR had installed five Justices on the court, and by 1943 he had put eight out of nine on the court.

    Does anyone have any recommendations for an analysis of the 1937 court packing attempt and its aftermath? Seems to me it would be worth understanding that better in light of recent events.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  55. Muggles says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    For some reason, few on this site complain.

    This is a weird statement coming from you, grousing that people on this site don’t “complain” about the New Deal. You are the most prolific commentator here on iSteve.

    That’s mostly if not entirely complaints about things. Okay, fine.

    But the New Deal from FDR was over 80 years ago. Even you find plenty of more recent developments to complain about.

    We can complain about things that happened yesterday, months ago or centuries ago. We hope that our recent complaints might result in positive actions, however rarely that happens. Complaints about legislation that’s decades old are, as they say in law, moot.

    Reg, we aren’t that desperate for things to complain about.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  56. 68W58 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    An honorable mention for the wretched Woodrow Wilson and his early expansion of the Federal Government, to say nothing of his pushing the country into World War I.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  57. EdwardM says:
    @PhysicistDave

    There’s the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which a bunch of states (all of whom voted Democratic in the last several elections) have passed. This is sort of clever* in that it tries to circumvent the electoral college as defined in the Constitution by taking advantage of the language that says that the states may choose the manner in which they appoint electors. It says that the state will appoint the electors for whoever won the national popular vote, and that this method will become effective when states that collectively control a majority of electoral votes enact the Compact.

    *It might be clever if it weren’t likely unconstitutional. And of course the intent to effectively eliminate the electoral college would be a disaster, not just for small-population states but for our whole representative system.

    I find it amusing (in a gallows-humor kind of way) that this is not one of those cases where they are arguing that the electoral college is obsolete or has worked in a way contrary to its intent. Rather, the electoral college is serving precisely the function that the Founding Fathers envisioned. Well, they are sometimes saying that the electoral college is obsolete, but yet not making any arguments that are different from those that Founders in large-population states would have made in the 1780s. Whether the electoral college is a good idea is open to debate, but it’s not obsolete or at odds with its intent in the sense that the same electoral dynamics are in play now as then.

    In fact the electoral college, like the Senate, is all about celebrating the diversity of America, with different areas all able to have a voice in the nation’s governance, not letting the dominant majority culture drown out the downtrodden little guy. Isn’t that supposed to be good?

  58. HELP WANTED!

    Due to expansion of our justice division, we are looking for a small number of retired judges to fill well-paid part-time positions. Candidates must be able to spend at least a few months of the year in Washington DC, agree to be vaccinated against Covid-19, and undergo a medical examination and drug test.

    Some knowledge of the Constitution of the USA would be helpful. Computer literacy useful, but not required, as assistance will be provided by clerks. Full on-the-job training will be provided in orientation and appointees will be instructed on how to make decisions approved by the employer.

    A previous history of making Court decisions favorable towards causes supported by the Democratic Party is not essential, and may be denied at interview, but candidates should be prepared to to state that they are opposed to abortion.

    If appointed you will receive an excellent salary, full health insurance, and a personal Wikipedia entry. There will be no pension as you will be expected to die in office. Funeral expenses will be covered by the employer.

    Must be legally employable in the United States of America and have no conviction for a felony within the last 5 years.

    Candidates who are gays, lesbos, trans, or who play a musical instrument are particularly welcome.

    No whites need apply.

    Resumes may be submitted by email to [email protected]. Closing date Memorial Day, 2021.

  59. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anon

    This bill is dead. It needs Joe Manchin’s vote to pass the Senate and he’s not going to support it.

    Let’s hope so. But a Republic that relies on the promises of a single man (and a Democratic Senator from West Virginia at that) is already dead.

  60. Mr. Anon says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    For some reason, few on this site complain.

    Also – for some reason – few on this site complain about the partition of Poland, the division of the Roman Empire, or the Assyrian conquest of Egypt.

  61. Rosie says:
    @ScarletNumber

    But you don’t have the power in the legislature (or anywhere else) to do that. That’s my whole point.

    Hmmm. Haven’t they been? If anything, it seems to me that we have, if anything, the opposite problem of judicial disregard of public opinion. Of course, conservatives play by the rules, and have been willing to abide by their rulings, like it or not, without resorting to court-packing proposals. That’s fine so long as the other side does likewise, which they are now signalling that they will not.

    Judicial overreach is not nearly the problem that it is made out to be, and judicial review is a common sense doctrine that follows from the very existence of a written constitution that purports to limit the power of the political branches.

    The appropriate check on judicial Power is the amendment process. The only reason this doesn’t work anymore is sitting in your living room. The Court does as it likes in full confidence that the Hoi polloi will be brought around to elite sensibilities by the idiot box rather than mobilizing to overturn them by amendment. The mass media undermine the broad, deep public consensus that you need to amend the Constitution.

    Of course, nobody wants to talk about the media. It’s boring, low-brow, and sounds cooky. It seems much more interesting and erudite to try and dream up unhackable government systems that will never exist but in the imagination.

    • Disagree: Abolish_public_education
  62. jsinton says:

    It all boils down to the plandemic and control of the NWO. One of the biggest legal fights on the horizon is the constitutionality of “vaccine passports” and the other assorted acts of tyranny in the name of keeping us “safe”. Second Amendment is also part of that, since the US is the only country left where there are large numbers of firearms in the hands of civilians. The citizens US of A is the BIGGEST threat to the NWO and their agenda. That’s why there is a concerted effort to destroy all the things that made American culture unique and the individual paramount.

  63. Anrothan says:

    All roads lead to Britain!

    Let me explain:

    1) Dems and Reps engage in an arms race, stuffing Supreme Court with dozens of partisans

    2) SC becomes a sort-of unelected Congress, but with unchecked power

    3) Reformers make SC posts time-limited and democratically elected

    4) Leader of majority SC party is now effectively ruler of US.

    5) US is now a UK-style parliamentary democracy

    ……

    6) Americans decide they don’t like saluting politicians and invite the Queen to be the ceremonial head of state (?)

  64. @PhysicistDave

    I must say, that’s a rather autistic response. It’s not at all implausible to imagine such a scenario, since they already approved the 17th amendment, renouncing their power to appoint Senators. Arguably, a more important alienation of power, and making the Electoral College truly redundant.

  65. Woodrow Wilson was utterly vile, allowing the formation of the Fed, implementation of the federal income tax, and the unnecessary jump into WWI, which he lied about during his election campaign.

  66. @anon

    ” The boomers will do nothing until Whites are a tiny oppressed minority and the USA is a broke police state where, like South Africa, the ultra rich live behind gated walls with private security and poor Whites live on the margins of society, attacked and berated in all things — doomed to eke out a living with virtually no prospects.”

    A lot of folks upthread sound like they’d be OK with that as long as they can still not afford healthcare. That’ll show ’em! No Socialism! Muh freedom!

    Correct me if I’m wrong, Sidney, but “the ultra rich live behind gated walls with private security and poor Whites live on the margins of society, attacked and berated in all things — doomed to eke out a living with virtually no prospects” — is pretty much paleo-conservative and libertarian Nirvana.

    The smart move for those poor Whites would have been Huey Long, not Hoover.

  67. @El Dato

    “‘And FDR did a lot of good instituting the kinds of reforms to soften and control capitalism that every country worth living in either already had already done or would do later.’

    “That’s some high-grade bullshit with undigested beans by Monsieur @Guy De Champlagne right there.”

    Tell that to the Israelis, who I’m sure would be glad to trade their social welfare state for a dose of goyishe “Muh Freedom!” Then renew your subscription to Human Events or whatever moldy paleocon rag you still read.

    As always, it’s Free Enterprise for thee, National Socialism (aka Zionism) for me!

  68. Matra says:
    @Johnny Smoggins

    The majority of people in California, Ireland and Taiwan all voted against gay marriage, but they got it anyway

    Correct on CA & Taiwan, but not Ireland, where a 2015 referendum on gay marriage was approved by 62% of voters.

  69. Rosie says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    Do you have any idea how actual coups work?

    Not really, but don’t you have anything better to do than go on about this?

    Besides, I thought military families supported Trump. How are you so sure they would have obeyed orders to drag him from the White House? Noone expects a revolution until it happens.

  70. Rosie says:
    @Magic Dirt Resident

    The left has made plenty of egregious moves like this before and it’s never led to a right wing response other than complaining.

    I suppose degrees of egregiousness are in the eyes of the beholder. If the Lefthas done something that egregious in my lifetime, I was not aware of it, but then, I’ve been so apathetic about politics for so long (with a brief interlude from 2016-2018), that wouldn’t be terribly surprising.

  71. Paleoconn says:

    Judging by the complete and utter uselessness of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and the woman who wept over Floyd, as Hillary once said, what difference at this point does it make?

  72. Hibernian says:
    @Guy De Champlagne

    And all the countries actually doing better than US…

    The Swiss?

  73. Peter T says:

    Never mind threatening to pack, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney actually got Queen Elizabeth to make a temporary expansion to the Canadian Senate in 1990, so that he could appoint some of his fellow Tories and get the Goods & Services Tax (GST) passed. (Mulroney had been PM since winning one of the largest majorities in Canadian history six years earlier, but the Senate had a lot of lifetime members who had been appointed by earlier Liberal prime ministers.)

    Mulroney succeeded in stacking the Senate, and he succeeded in getting the GST passed — but the GST was so unpopular with the public that it became one of the key reasons Mulroney resigned a few years later and his party was destroyed forever in the 1993 election. (The Liberal who won the 1993 election, Jean Chretien, promised to abolish the GST — but of course, he never did.)

    So, stacking sometimes backfires on the stacker.

    More info here: https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1990-mulroney-stacks-senate-to-pass-the-gst

  74. @Muggles

    But the New Deal from FDR was over 80 years ago.

    Egged on by the same method threatened in 2021. Everything old is new again.

  75. Craken says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I agree with everything up to your penultimate sentence. Leaving aside the internment as a minor matter, are you claiming FDR was “the godfather…of all the [American] death in WWII”?
    If so, I wonder how you think he could have minimized US involvement, given the domestic political context in which he was operating?
    By 1939, Japan controlled Korea, Formosa, a great many islands in the Western Pacific, and perhaps half of China’s productive capacity. These strategic gains prompted FDR to provoke Japan with trade penalties. That is standard geopolitical competition. Once the Japanese made their fatal mistake, Hitler was foolish enough to preempt any American declaration of war by declaring war on America. In my opinion, his only reasonable option for minimizing involvement was to keep the UK safe and let the two evil empires fight themselves to exhaustion in the East. But, with the advent of nuclear weapons, only one–at most–ought to have been permitted to survive. Japan had to be submitted.

  76. @68W58

    I had him in mind when I wrote that, 68W58. I’m glad to hear that addition from someone else! Wilson’s “handiwork” at the end of WWI was the cause of WWII, many would say. Yes, dishonorable mention.

    • Thanks: 68W58
  77. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Guy De Champlagne

    How can you accuse others of being mired in the past and then call everything you dislike literal bolshevism? The bolsheviks were the enemy two generations ago at least.

    Yep. The far right is even more stupid than the mainstream right. They still want to fight the ideological battles of 70 years ago. It’s sad and pathetic, although it’s also kind of amusing.

  78. @PhysicistDave

    Excellent comment, Dave! I missed it yesterday. Also, I didn’t remember that I had already read something about the Zangara assassination attempt until you brought it up again. That stupid Wop took 5 shots, but killed the Mayor of Chicago instead.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  79. @dfordoom

    If you can’t see the similarities between the ctrl-left of today and the left of a century ago, then you have no grasp of history and no imagination. You’re another one of these no-clue Millennials chiming in, too young to know what’s really going on and too proud to try to learn something from people who do.

    It’s not amusing – can you go back to A.E.’s blog? Commenters like you are the reason I quit reading comments over there.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  80. Hibernian says:
    @dfordoom

    The bolsheviks were the enemy two generations ago at least.

    Jesus was on this Earth eighty generations ago (as were his enemies.) You’re making the typical Leftist “chronological argument.”

  81. Hibernian says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Cermak was his intended target.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  82. @Hibernian

    Thanks, Hibernian. I read your reply to Physicist Dave after I’d already submitted mine.

  83. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You’re another one of these no-clue Millennials chiming in, too young to know what’s really going on and too proud to try to learn something from people who do.

    Hardly. I’m about Steve’s age. I’m not old enough to remember the Left of a century ago but I’m old enough to remember the Left of the 1970s. And the ideological battles of the 70s were totally different from the ideological battles of today. There’s such a thing as history. Things don’t stay the same. Ideologies evolve. Societies evolve (not always in good ways).

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  84. @dfordoom

    “Ideologies evolve.” How much have people evolved over the last century? History is about people. The control freaks throughout history have the same mentality of those of today, whether they push Socialism, Communism, Fascism, or any other kind of Totalitarianism. Some do it just for the power and others for their unrealistic goals of some better, utopian society. To get there, they all must destroy traditional society.

    It doesn’t take that much imagination to understand that the antifa types and the ctrl-left in general are no different than the Bolsheviks of 100 years ago.

    History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  85. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    How much have people evolved over the last century?

    The beliefs and the values of people today are so radically different from the beliefs and values of people a century ago that it’s like a different universe.

    A hundred years ago a person who had had an illegitimate child lived in constant fear that their secret would be discovered. Today such a person is celebrated.

    A hundred years ago abortion was considered to be both a sin and a crime. Today it’s celebrated.

    A hundred years ago homosexuality was considered to be both a sin and a crime. Today it’s a major social asset.

    A hundred years ago if you expressed the opinion that you can change your sex at will you’d have been confined to a mental institution. Today you’re persecuted if you don’t believe that people can change their sex at will.

    A hundred years ago racism was taken for granted. Expressing a racist thought today can mean losing your job.

    Do you still want to argue that people don’t evolve?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  86. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It doesn’t take that much imagination to understand that the antifa types and the ctrl-left in general are no different than the Bolsheviks of 100 years ago.

    The antifa types and the ctrl-left are on the side of the Establishment. They are fighting to maintain the status quo. The Bolsheviks were trying to overthrow the Establishment.

    The Bolsheviks wanted to overturn the existing economic system. The antifa and the ctrl-left want to maintain the existing economic system.

    The Bolsheviks stood for economic justice and economic equality. The antifa and the ctrl-left stand for economic injustice and economic inequality.

    The Bolsheviks (if you’re talking specifically about the original Bolsheviks) stood for peace. The antifa and the ctrl-left stand for war.

    Those seem to be definite differences.

    To argue that they’re the same because they both want power is silly. All political movements want power. You might as well say that the Republican Party and the Bolsheviks are identical because they both want power. Or that the alt-right and the Bolsheviks are identical because they both want power.

    As for totalitarianism, that’s the inevitable end point of democracy. Democracy makes everything a political issue and it therefore makes everything the government’s business. The end result will always be totalitarianism.

    Democracy and libertarianism are incompatible. Democracy always leads to the growth of government.

  87. @dfordoom

    Do you still want to argue that people don’t evolve?

    Those are opinions and modes of the times. These are crazy times. There were crazy times in Europe a century ago. So what? The people haven’t evolved. (If anything, they’ve devolved somewhat due to dysgenics caused by Socialism over the last half-century.)

    You seem to think that things can only inexorably go in one direction, and all this you mention can’t come to a head. People have been, and are being, pushed in one direction. You don’t make them evolve like that. When the financial SHTF in this place, things will get real, and all the stupidity you mention STOPS.

    When you read history, it’s not just about names, dates, and policies. Think of the people and what they were like. We are seeing the same people that Europeans had to deal with a century ago. They may as well have been reincarnated, but it’s just genetics.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement