1. The fight over the courts is really a fight over democracy -- and part of longer history of the courts being a bulwark of minority rule which needed to be challenged (and sometimes delegitimized) by democratic mass movements.
-
-
4. Some more thoughts on why fixing the partisan balance of the courts isn't enough and what is needed is a more sweeping program of asserting the primacy of the people.https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/court-pack-democratic-party/ …
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And arguably some of Roberts’ recent judgements siding with the liberal minority on the court were an attempt to maintain its credibility and keep it from being seen as a purely partisan tool. That ends with a 6-3 court.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Well, that’s just a coincidence. The term is “a stitch in time saves nine.” And that was a play on it.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Well the backlash over this gambit was so enormous that Americans only re-elected FDR two more times
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not really clear it was the court-packing plan that did it. Parrish - typically considered the moment where the switch occurred - was decided before the plan was announced. Also not clear how much the switch mattered, given that FDR appointed 5 justices from '37-'40.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Eh..mixed bag in that regard. The SC stopped challenging most existing laws, but conservative elements in congress used court packing as a justification for putting their foot down and effectively stopped the New Deal in its tracks after 1937.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.