16. Even FDR at the pinnacle of his power, having just won over 500 electoral votes and holding over 80% of the Senate, found that Court-packing was a step too far towards making the Court a flimsy tool of politicians for the American public to tolerate.
IOW, you see the threat itself as a way to demolish judicial independence.
-
-
Unless you think that, on the major issues, the Court is already very close to bring an arm of the RNC. In Janus, SCOTUS decided to ignore a 40 year precedent. If the court no longer has a credibility as a neutral arbiter—and it doesn’t—then “independent judiciary” is just a way
-
to block Dem passed laws. Now, we see a wished for “judicial activism” from the purportedly prudent originalist conservatives. It’s not 1955 anymore and we can’t go back there. Garland confirmed that—the most moderate judge Obama could nominate.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And yeah, Dems started it with appellate courts. Fair! But nixing Merrick Garland, maybe the most respected appellate judge, on purely partisan grounds for the high court? Ok, you got what you wanted. But nobody is going to let Rs decide what is “independent” anymore.
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.