Look Who Wants 'Compromise' Now

[Bonnie]

Filibusters on Judicial Nominations:
Myth and Fact

Myth: U.S. Senate Republicans are attempting to abolish all filibusters.

Fact: Republicans are seeking to restore the advice and consent constitutional obligations of the Senate for judicial nominees -- not eliminate the legislative filibuster (filibusters on bills or amendments) -- even though Democrats have supported in the past abolishing all forms of filibusters.

In 1995, Democrats (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes) wanted to end the legislative filibuster. In 1995, the only senators on record supporting the end of the legislative filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate. (Karen Hosler, “Senators Vote 76-19 to Maintain Filibuster,” The [Baltimore] Sun, 1/6/95; S.Res. 14, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 76-19: R 53-0; D 23-19, 1/5/95, Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes Voted Nay on a motion to table the rules change; Frist Voted Yea)

The Harkin-Lieberman proposal would have amended the Senate rules to allow a simple majority to overcome “any” filibuster, legislative or executive. (Karen Hosler, “Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster,” The [Baltimore] Sun, 1/6/95; S.Amdt. 1, Motion To Table Agreed To, 1/5/95)
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) is proposing to change the rule on filibusters of judicial nominees only. “Majority Leader Frist is threatening to use an obscure parliamentary maneuver -- dubbed by some ‘the nuclear option’ -- to change Senate rules and forbid filibusters against judicial nominees.” (John Yang, op-ed, “Fili-bluster,” The Washington Post, 1/16/05)

In fact, Senator Frist’s first Senate vote, on January 5, 1995, was to preserve legislative filibusters.

As Majority Leader, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) initiated four precedents that allowed a simply majority to change Senate procedures without altering the Standing Rules, thereby undermining minority rights to filibuster and use related tactics. (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1977, pp. S31916-27; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1980, pp. S4729-32; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S31892-94; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1987, pp. S12252-60)

Myth: Democrats’ treatment of Bush’s nominees is analogous to Republicans’ treatment of Clinton’s nominees.

Fact: President Clinton’s judicial nominees were not filibustered and never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote in the Senate by a filibuster.

“[Harry] Reid and company have used the Senate filibuster rule to permanently deny votes to nominees with clear majority support. That’s never been done before.” (David Reinhard, op-ed, "Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibustered," The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

President Bush’s confirmation rate for appellate judges is the lowest of any modern President. “A better figure would compare Bush’s four-year appellate confirmation rate to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute’s John Lott Jr., Bush’s four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton’s rate was 74 percent.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibuster,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

In 1994, when the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the Executive Branch, President Clinton confirmed a record number of federal judges -- 54 of these nominees were pushed through in the 3 months immediately prior to the 1994 elections. “President Clinton has gotten 129 federal judges confirmed by the Senate, more than any previous president during the first two years in office… 101 of his 129 judges were confirmed in 1994. That was the highest one-year total since Jimmy Carter won approval of 135 in 1979.” (Michael J. Sniffen, “Clinton Outdoes Predecessors In Filing Judicial Vacancies,” The Associated Press, 10/12/94)

While Democrats claim they have confirmed more than 200 of President Bush’s judicial nominees, 10 of the 52 nominees to the circuit courts of appeals were filibustered. (Jesse J. Holland, “Senate Confirms First Judge Of Bush’s Second Term,” The Associated Press, 4/11/05)
During the 108th Congress (2003-2004), the Senate voted on 20 motions to invoke cloture, or end debate on 10 different judicial nominees. The average vote to end debate was 53-43 -- enough support to confirm each nominee but fewer than the 60 votes required to end debate. (CQ Vote #40: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03; CQ Vote #53: Motion Rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03; CQ Vote #56: Motion Rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03; CQ Vote #114: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03; CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 50-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 5/1/03; CQ Vote #140: Motion Rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03; CQ Vote #143: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03; CQ Vote #144: Motion Rejected 52-45: R 50-0; D 2-44; I 0-1, 5/8/03; CQ Vote #308: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 7/29/03; CQ Vote #312: Motion Rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03; CQ Vote #316: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-44; I 0-0, 7/31/03; CQ Vote #419: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 1-0, 10/30/03; CQ Vote #441: Motion Rejected 51-43: R 49-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/6/03; CQ Vote #450: Motion Rejected 53-42: R 51-0; D 2-41; I 0-1, 11/14/03; CQ Vote #451: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03; CQ Vote #452: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03; CQ Vote #158: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 7/20/04; CQ Vote #160: Motion Rejected 52-46: R 51-0; D 1-45; I 0-1, 7/22/04; CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 51-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04; CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 50-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04)

Numerous Clinton nominees that were confirmed received less than 60 votes, and none of these were kept off the bench by partisan filibusters (e.g., Judge Richard Paez, with 59-vote support; Judge William Fletcher, with 57-vote support; and Judge Susan Mollway, with 56-vote support). (Sen. John Cornyn, “President’s Nominees Deserve Up-Or-Down Vote, Sen. Cornyn Says,” Press Release, 2/14/05; CQ Vote #40, Confirmed 59-39; R 14-39; D 45-0, 3/9/00; CQ Vote #309, Confirmed 57-41; R 14-41; D 43-0, 10/8/98; CQ Vote #166, Confirmed 56-34; R 14-34; D 42-0, 6/22/98)
Myth: Filibusters of judicial nominations are part of Senate tradition.

Fact: Having to overcome a filibuster (or obtaining 60 votes) on judicial nominees is unprecedented and has never been the confirmation test for a nominee -- and in the past, even Democrats have called for up or down votes.

Congressional Quarterly: “Indeed, as Daschle’s whip, Reid helped orchestrate an unprecedented filibuster of some of President Bush’s more conservative judicial nominees.” (Allison Stevens, “Senate Democrats Set A Daschle-Like Tone for 2005,” Congressional Quarterly, 11/16/04)

National Review’s Mark Levin: “Each of these candidates reportedly has enough votes for confirmation, but for the unprecedented use or threat of filibusters. The majority has every right and reason to change the rule.” (Mark R. Levin, Op-Ed, “Will On Filibusters,” National Review Online, 3/21/05)

In 1999, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) declared: “Vote them up, vote them down.” “But I think they have given the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, and if the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do – to vote for or against. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)

In 1998, Leahy called filibustering judicial nominations “improper.” “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/14/98)
In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said that voting on judicial nominees was something that the Senate owed to all Americans. “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

Myth: Filibusters of judicial nominees are based on the Constitution

Fact: Senate debate is governed by Senate rules, not by the Constitution. The Senate’s Constitutional role to advise and consent is in fact being impaired by the unprecedented use of partisan filibusters to block confirmation votes.

In 1998, Sen. Leahy said promptly confirming judges was Senate’s “constitutional responsibility.” “We must redouble our efforts to work with the President to end the longstanding vacancies that plague the federal courts and disadvantage all Americans. That is our constitutional responsibility.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/8/99, p. S10544)

Leahy In 1998: “Acting to fill judicial vacancies is a constitutional duty that the Senate – and all of its members – are obligated to fulfill. In its unprecedented slowdown in the handling of nominees in the 104th and 105th Congresses, the Senate is shirking its duty. This is wrong and should end.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 7/17/98, p. S8477)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said government does not fulfill its “constitutional mandate” when judicial nominees do not receive a vote. “The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.” (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

Schumer in 2000: “[W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party then the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)
Myth: The nomination of Abe Fortas was filibustered by Senate Republicans.

Fact: Abe Fortas’s nomination was opposed by a bipartisan effort in the U.S. Senate. There was no evidence he would have received a majority vote and some say Fortas’s nomination was not filibustered.

Twenty-four Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted against cloture. (CQ Vote #255: Motion Rejected 45-43: R 10-24; D 35-19; 10/1/68)
The Fortas case was an isolated incident in 1968 that cannot be compared to Leadership-driven, wholly partisan filibusters that have been used as an instrument of party policy to block Bush nominees.

The Washington Times: “There is no evidence that Fortas would have received majority support in the Senate on an up-or-down vote.” “Only Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, whose 1968 nomination to be chief justice was briefly subjected to a bipartisan filibuster before it was withdrawn after a single cloture vote, failed to be confirmed. And with 19 Democratic senators voting against cloture, there is no evidence that Fortas would have received majority support in the Senate on an up-or-down vote.” (Editorial, “A Senatorial Bottleneck,” The Washington Times, 2/20/05)

Former Senator Robert Griffin (R-MI), who was a leading Republican opponent of the Fortas nomination, asserted the day after the cloture vote that cloture was opposed because of clearly insufficient time for debate, that more Senators were on the record against Fortas than were for him, and that the nomination would not have commanded majority support. Congressional Record, October 2, 1968, page 29150

Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) quoted a letter from former Sen. Griffin which stated that “four days of debate on a nomination for chief justice is hardly a filibuster.” “Having been on the scene in 1968, and having participated in that debate, I see a number of very important differences between what happened then and the situation that confronts the Senate today.” (Sen. Larry Craig, Congressional Record, 11/12/03, p. S14560)
Myth: The constitutional option Is unprecedented.

Fact: Senate Democrats have used the constitutional option in the past.

As Majority Leader in 1979, Senator Byrd expressly threatened to use the constitutional option in order to leverage successfully a time agreement on a rules change resolution : “Let the Senate vote on amendments, and then vote up or down on the resolution. … If I have to be forced into a corner to try for a majority vote , I will [changed the rules] because I am going to do my duty as I see my duty, whether I win or lose.” (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S144-45)

Byrd led the creation of precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987 to stop filibusters and other delaying tactics previously allowed under Senate rules or precedents. “Mr. Byrd led the charge to change the rules in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987, and, in some cases, to do precisely what Republicans are now proposing.” (Editorial, “Sen. Byrd On Filibuster-Busting,” The Washington Times, 3/7/05)
MYTH: Democrats merely want to express their opinions on the judicial nominations.

FACT: Democrats are filibustering nominees in order to block them permanently -- not to preserve free speech.

When asked how many hours were necessary to debate the nomination of Priscilla Owen, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) answered, “There Is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 4/8/03, p. S4949)

By September 2004, the Senate had spent more than 150 hours debating judicial nominations -- more than any previous Congress. (U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, “The Assault on Judicial Nominations in the 108th Congress,” 9/28/04)

The Senate had 28 months to debate the nomination of Miguel Estrada before it was withdrawn. “After remaining in limbo for 28 months while Democrats filibustered to block his approval, Estrada … withdrew his name in September 2003.” (Tim O’Brien, “Hispanic Lawyers Line Up Behind Nominee for AG,” The Legal Intelligencer, 11/16/04)

http://www.nrlc.org/Judicial/FilibusterMythFact.html

 

[freeandfun1]

Thanks Bonnie!!!!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

Democrats have backed themselves into a corner here. If Republicans refuse to compromise they will completely destroy the Democrat party. They wont be a viable choice in this country for the next 50 years. Heck im not sure they are now. They are the ones who brought this battle up. So lets finish it. Change the rules so that the traditions of the Senate can be restored and Democrats can commit political suicide by trying to shut down the Senate. Trust me, it wont be the republicans that are looking petty here.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Democrats have backed themselves into a corner here. If Republicans refuse to compromise they will completely destroy the Democrat party. They wont be a viable choice in this country for the next 50 years. Heck im not sure they are now. They are the ones who brought this battle up. So lets finish it. Change the rules so that the traditions of the Senate can be restored and Democrats can commit political suicide by trying to shut down the Senate. Trust me, it wont be the republicans that are looking petty here.

and thats all fine and well, but again, remember that the pendulum does swing and how will you feel in 50 years when the conservatives have no prayer of stopping any liberal judge no matter how radical and extreme.

 

[freeandfun1]

and thats all fine and well, but again, remember that the pendulum does swing and how will you feel in 50 years when the conservatives have no prayer of stopping any liberal judge no matter how radical and extreme.

I don't get why you think it is okay now, but when the Republicans didn't do this during the Clinton admin, you will not recognize that they didn't do so because THEY followed the rules and now the dems are not.

See, the GOP didn't do this in the 90's, because they knew that it went against the rules. Why are the dems exempt from the rules?

 

[Avatar4321]

and thats all fine and well, but again, remember that the pendulum does swing and how will you feel in 50 years when the conservatives have no prayer of stopping any liberal judge no matter how radical and extreme.

Liberalism as it is now will long be destroyed. If Republicans lose power it will be because they have become corrupted, with nothing to offer the American people. IE when they cease to become conservative. And then those who are the true conservers of freedom will rise up and challenge them and win.

Radical and extreme liberalism will never be the majority view of the American people. If it is, then it wont matter if they regain power, because our nation will not survive it. We will have alot of bigger problems on our hands.

 

[Bonnie]

Liberalism as it is now will long be destroyed. If Republicans lose power it will be because they have become corrupted, with nothing to offer the American people. IE when they cease to become conservative. And then those who are the true conservers of freedom will rise up and challenge them and win.

Radical and extreme liberalism will never be the majority view of the American people. If it is, then it wont matter if they regain power, because our nation will not survive it. We will have alot of bigger problems on our hands.

Remember how the Republicans paid politically when they broke their contract with America??

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I don't get why you think it is okay now, but when the Republicans didn't do this during the Clinton admin, you will not recognize that they didn't do so because THEY followed the rules and now the dems are not.

See, the GOP didn't do this in the 90's, because they knew that it went against the rules. Why are the dems exempt from the rules?

its easy not to filibuster when you can prevent a judge from ever getting in committee. as it stands, it takes 60 to break cloture, but when lott ran the comittee, it only took one to stop a judge.

 

[dilloduck]

its easy not to filibuster when you can prevent a judge from ever getting in committee. as it stands, it takes 60 to break cloture, but when lott ran the comittee, it only took one to stop a judge.

STY--this is no different than any administration in history---they all try whatever they can to get what they want. The issues may be different but the goal is the same---power grabs.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Forget "compromise"!

If the situation was reversed, what do you think the Democrats would do to get their judges nominated? You bet - the "nuclear option" would be heralded by the liberal media as the only fair resolution to the problem because it simply asks for an up or down vote on the candidates instead of letting 40% hold up the majority wishes. The Democrats would not hesitate to eliminate unfair filibustering.

Republicans are now in power...it is time for them to use to straighten out the Courts which have been legally twisted by the Democrats for decades.

 

[Bonnie]

Franklin D. Roosevelt: 1933 - 1945

Fireside Chat
March 9, 1937
Last Thursday I described in detail certain economic problems which everyone admits now face the Nation. For the many messages which have come to me after that speech, and which it is physically impossible to answer individually, I take this means of saying "thank you."

Tonight, sitting at my desk in the White House, I make my first radio report to the people in my second term of office.

I am reminded of that evening in March, four years ago, when I made my first radio report to you. We were then in the midst of the great banking crisis.

Soon after, with the authority of the Congress, we asked the Nation to turn over all of its privately held gold, dollar for dollar, to the Government of the United States.

Today's recovery proves how right that policy was.

But when, almost two years later, it came before the Supreme Court its constitutionality was upheld only by a five-to-four vote. The change of one vote would have thrown all the affairs of this great Nation back into hopeless chaos. In effect, four Justices ruled that the right under a private contract to exact a pound of flesh was more sacred than the main objectives of the Constitution to establish an enduring Nation.

In 1933 you and I knew that we must never let our economic system get completely out of joint again- that we could not afford to take the risk of another great depression.

We also became convinced that the only way to avoid a repetition of those dark days was to have a government with power to prevent and to cure the abuses and the inequalities which had thrown that system out of joint.

We then began a program of remedying those abuses and inequalities-to give balance and stability to our economic system to make it bomb-proof against the causes of 1929.

Today we are only part-way through that program—and recovery is speeding up to a point where the dangers of 1929 are again becoming possible, not this week or month perhaps, but within a year or two.

National laws are needed to complete that program. Individual or local or state effort alone cannot protect us in 1937 any better than ten years ago.

It will take time—and plenty of time—to work out our remedies administratively even after legislation is passed. To complete our program of protection in time, therefore, we cannot delay one moment in making certain that our National Government has power to carry through.

Four years ago action did not come until the eleventh hour. It was almost too late.

If we learned anything from the depression we will not allow ourselves to run around in new circles of futile discussion and debate, always postponing the day of decision.

The American people have learned from the depression. For in the last three national elections an overwhelming majority of them voted a mandate that the Congress and the President begin the task of providing that protection—not after long years of debate, but now.

The Courts, however, have cast doubts on the ability of the elected Congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions.

We are at a crisis in our ability to proceed with that protection. It is a quiet crisis. There are no lines of depositors outside closed banks. But to the far-sighted it is far-reaching in its possibilities of injury to America.

I want to talk with you very simply about the need for present action in this crisis- the need to meet the unanswered challenge of one-third of a Nation ill-nourished, ill-clad, ill-housed.

Last Thursday I described the American form of Government as a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. The three horses are, of course, the three branches of government—the Congress, the Executive and the Courts. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not. Those who have intimated that the President of the United States is trying to drive that team, overlook the simple fact that the President, as Chief Executive, is himself one of the three horses.

It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.

It is the American people themselves who expect the third horse to pull in unison with the other two.

I hope that you have re-read the Constitution of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again.

It is an easy document to understand when you remember that it was called into being because the Articles of Confederation under which the original thirteen States tried to operate after the Revolution showed the need of a National Government with power enough to handle national problems. In its Preamble, the Constitution states that it was intended to form a more perfect Union and promote the general welfare; and the powers given to the Congress to carry out those purposes can be best described by saying that they were all the powers needed to meet each and every problem which then had a national character and which could not be met by merely local action.

But the framers went further. Having in mind that in succeeding generations many other problems then undreamed of would become national problems, they gave to the Congress the ample broad powers "to levy taxes . . . and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

That, my friends, is what I honestly believe to have been the clear and underlying purpose of the patriots who wrote a Federal Constitution to create a National Government with national power, intended as they said, "to form a more perfect union for ourselves and our posterity."

For nearly twenty years there was no conflict between the Congress and the Court. Then Congress passed a statute which, in 1803, the Court said violated an express provision of the Constitution. The Court claimed the power to declare it unconstitutional and did so declare it. But a little later the Court itself admitted that it was an extraordinary power to exercise and through Mr. Justice Washington laid down this limitation upon it: "It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt."

But since the rise of the modern movement for social and economic progress through legislation, the Court has more and more often and more and more boldly asserted a power to veto laws passed by the Congress and State Legislatures in complete disregard of this original limitation.

In the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body.

When the Congress has sought to stabilize national agriculture, to improve the conditions of labor, to safeguard business against unfair competition, to protect our national resources, and in many other ways, to serve our clearly national needs, the majority of the Court has been assuming the power to pass on the wisdom of these Acts of the Congress—and to approve or disapprove the public policy written into these laws.

That is not only my accusation. It is the accusation of most distinguished Justices of the present Supreme Court. I have not the time to quote to you all the language used by dissenting Justices in many of these cases. But in the case holding the Railroad Retirement Act unconstitutional, for instance, Chief Justice Hughes said in a dissenting opinion that the majority opinion was "a departure from sound principles," and placed "an unwarranted limitation upon the commerce clause." And three other Justices agreed with him.

In the case holding the A.A.A. unconstitutional, Justice Stone said of the majority opinion that it was a "tortured construction of the Constitution." And two other Justices agreed with him.

In the case holding the New York Minimum Wage Law unconstitutional, Justice Stone said that the majority were actually reading-into the Constitution their own "personal economic predilections," and that if the legislative power is not left free to choose the methods of solving the problems of poverty, subsistence and health of large numbers in the community, then "government is to be rendered impotent." And two other Justices agreed with him.

In the face of these dissenting opinions, there is no basis for the claim made by some members of the Court that something in the Constitution has compelled them regretfully to thwart the will of the people.

In the face of such dissenting opinions, it is perfectly clear, that as Chief Justice Hughes has said: "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the Judges say it is."

The Court in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions has improperly set itself up as a third House of the Congress—a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it-reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there.

We have, therefore, reached the point as a Nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution—not over it. In our Courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

I want—as all Americans want—an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written—that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power—amendment by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts universally recognized.

How then could we proceed to perform the mandate given us? It was said in last year's Democratic platform, "If these problems cannot be effectively solved within the Constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendment as will assure the power to enact those laws, adequately to regulate commerce, protect public health and safety, and safeguard economic security." In other words, we said we would seek an amendment only if every other possible means by legislation were to fail.

When I commenced to review the situation with the problem squarely before me, I came by a process of elimination to the conclusion that, short of amendments, the only method which was clearly constitutional, and would at the same time carry out other much needed reforms, was to infuse new blood into all our Courts. We must have men worthy and equipped to carry out impartial justice. But, at the same time, we must have Judges who will bring to the Courts a present-day sense of the Constitution -Judges who will retain in the Courts the judicial functions of a court, and reject the legislative powers which the courts have today assumed.

more...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showdoc.php?id=913&type=4&president=32

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Franklin D. Roosevelt: 1933 - 1945


more...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showdoc.php?id=913&type=4&president=32

What Roosevelt said in his Fireside chat was full of many ideas and platitudes that most conservatives would agree with, however, what he was really trying to do was stack the courts with extra judges in order to push through his New Deal legislation.

This to me is a perfect example of "liberalspeak". It sounds so good and so reasonable - and actually much of it is. However - if you read between the lines - Roosevelt was in essence attacking the conservative Supreme Court because they were not agreeing with his liberal policies. You get a taste of it when he says "...we must have Judges who will bring to the Courts a present-day sense of the Constitution..."

Ultimately Roosevelt failed in his plan to stack the courts to get more "votes" on his side of the issues as even many of his Democrat supporters did not agree with his tactics. However, eventually he got New Deal legislations passed through the courts because one of the conservative judges retired and a couple other "swing voters" started to "vote" in his favor.

 

[Bonnie]

What Roosevelt said in his Fireside chat was full of many ideas and platitudes that most conservatives would agree with, however, what he was really trying to do was stack the courts with extra judges in order to push through his New Deal legislation.

This to me is a perfect example of "liberalspeak". It sounds so good and so reasonable - and actually much of it is. However - if you read between the lines - Roosevelt was in essence attacking the conservative Supreme Court because they were not agreeing with his liberal policies. You get a taste of it when he says "...we must have Judges who will bring to the Courts a present-day sense of the Constitution..."

Ultimately Roosevelt failed in his plan to stack the courts to get more "votes" on his side of the issues as even many of his Democrat supporters did not agree with his tactics. However, eventually he got New Deal legislations passed through the courts because one of the conservative judges retired and a couple other "swing voters" started to "vote" in his favor.

Exactly!!!