Fascism Is as Fascism Does

[Contumacious]

Any who have studied the history of the last century understand how very similar the economic policies of Mussolini and of Franklin Roosevelt were.

Economic policies?
....it goes well beyond economic policies. In many ways, elites desired this nation to mirror Fascist Italy....

The authoritarian designs of Italian government structures were also attractive to Roosevelt, as a way of symbolizing the strength of all-powerful state authority.

.

Yes , we agree.

Anytime the government ignores INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and supports the "common good" , society, the tribe, etc, you have fascism.

.

If you're using the term 'fascism' as a generic pejorative, perhaps. But fascism is a pretty specific doctrine involving belligerant nationalism, state sanctioned racism, draconian social and economic controls, dictatorship, violent suppression of opposition and violent suppression of the press.

None of which your reimagined definition of fascism includes.

Mr dumbfuck, Sir:

Neither the Japanese nor the Italian models were racists.

Only the German was.

Fascism is properly defined as


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "

.

 

[Discombobulated]

"The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology.

And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.

I guess some people just prefer historians who have blogs instead of publishers.

What was that? Did you just mumble 'is not, is not'?

No, what you heard was me discrediting your sources as being invalid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay, so we all agree that the extremely popular Social Security is the number one item on FDR's legacy.

What would you say is next down the list?

Anyone?

Extremely popular and extremely successful.

Perhaps the most significant legacy of the FDR Administration would be the post-Lochner case law recognizing the fact that the Commerce Clause authorizes necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies addressing such issues as employee safety, wage and compensation requirements, and consumer protection (see, e.g., West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), United States v. Darby (1941). Wickard v. Filburn (1942)).

This Commerce Clause jurisprudence reflecting the original intent of the Framers contributed to the formation of a modern American Nation bringing the country out of the 19th Century and into the 20th.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I guess some people just prefer historians who have blogs instead of publishers.

What was that? Did you just mumble 'is not, is not'?

No, what you heard was me discrediting your sources as being invalid.

So....you don't understand the meaning of the word 'discredit'?

'is not, is not' does not 'discredit'.....and certainly not from a non-entity like you.

In fact, as you have shown yourself to be no more than a Roosevelt boot-licker, your attempt actually supports West's point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly! You asked why FDR was a proponent of national socialism. You asked for specifics with regard to his policies. You were given that information, detailed, comprehensive information to read and think about for yourself. You were also given further reading and a promise for more.

Response: you attack the man and move the goalpost, as if we weren't talking about the well-established, objectively demonstrable history of the pre-WWII Progressive Era.

And so folks like PC and I verbally slap you silly-ass ignoramuses around. You don't read or think about anything that doesn't jell with the revisionism of cultural Marxism.

Take the blinders off, and stop pretending that you don't get the ramifications of this history.

Don't understand? I don't need Goldberg, you do. He didn't write his work for folks like me. He wrote it for folks like you, the historically illiterate hayseeds of cultural Marxism, the drones of popular culture. Hayek's work, beginning with the historical roots of fascism and communism from the Enlightenment, addresses this period of history and it's aftermath even more comprehensively. I've been reading and writing about America's Progressive Era, from Teddy Roosevelt to FDR, especially, for decades . . . years before Goldberg published his work.

Can't articulate? The helpful links at the bottom of my post in the above were provided that you might know the difference between the classical liberalism of this nation's founding and the neo-/post-liberalism of that Era. Those pieces are written by me.

I'm steeped in the theological and philosophical works of Western civilization, in the history of ideas and events from the classical era to the post-modern era, and in the formative history of the ancients.

Who the hell are you?

You have no idea how woefully ignorant and irrational you are.

Are you saying that you're a brainwashed, hear-no-evil cultist incapable of articulating an argument refuting the history of Hegel and Rousseau's sociopolitical legacy in Europe and America?

Let me help you: yes, that's what you're saying.

I asked what are the components of FDR's legacy that most Americans today object to?

So far no one has been able to name ONE.

You're a liar. The following is what you wrote, and the following is what I responded to:

And what, precisely and specifically, did Roosevelt do that qualifies as uniquely fascist under any sane definition of fascism, and that was uniquely an FDR policy?

And you can take your disingenuous qualifier sane and shove it up your. . . .

He has no problem being known as a liar....it is an appellation he has had to live with for some time.

 

[Dot Com]

Okay, so we all agree that the extremely popular Social Security is the number one item on FDR's legacy.

What would you say is next down the list?

Anyone?

Extremely popular and extremely successful.

Perhaps the most significant legacy of the FDR Administration would be the post-Lochner case law recognizing the fact that the Commerce Clause authorizes necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies addressing such issues as employee safety, wage and compensation requirements, and consumer protection (see, e.g., West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), United States v. Darby (1941). Wickard v. Filburn (1942)).

This Commerce Clause jurisprudence reflecting the original intent of the Framers contributed to the formation of a modern American Nation bringing the country out of the 19th Century and into the 20th.

good post. Far too good for this rw kool aid thread

 

[Contumacious]

Okay, so we all agree that the extremely popular Social Security is the number one item on FDR's legacy.

What would you say is next down the list?

Anyone?

Extremely popular and extremely successful.

Perhaps the most significant legacy of the FDR Administration would be the post-Lochner case law recognizing the fact that the Commerce Clause authorizes ...............

----------the adoption of the Communist Manifesto

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Okay, so we all agree that the extremely popular Social Security is the number one item on FDR's legacy.

What would you say is next down the list?

Anyone?

Extremely popular and extremely successful.

Perhaps the most significant legacy of the FDR Administration would be the post-Lochner case law recognizing the fact that the Commerce Clause authorizes necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies addressing such issues as employee safety, wage and compensation requirements, and consumer protection (see, e.g., West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), United States v. Darby (1941). Wickard v. Filburn (1942)).

This Commerce Clause jurisprudence reflecting the original intent of the Framers contributed to the formation of a modern American Nation bringing the country out of the 19th Century and into the 20th.

good post. Far too good for this rw kool aid thread

Yet, here you are.....a moth to my flame.

And, as happens to moths near flames........


....you've been burned.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Okay, so we all agree that the extremely popular Social Security is the number one item on FDR's legacy.

What would you say is next down the list?

Anyone?

Extremely popular and extremely successful.

Perhaps the most significant legacy of the FDR Administration would be the post-Lochner case law recognizing the fact that the Commerce Clause authorizes ...............

----------the adoption of the Communist Manifesto

.

Just one more of the ways Franklin Roosevelt destroyed the pillars on which this nation was built.

On April 12, 1937, the United States ceased to be a republic of limited constitutional government. The Supreme Court upheld the Wagner Labor Relations Act. No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply....now we would be a European model welfare state, in which the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens. The coda came when the court upheld the Social Security Act on May 24, 1937, and, then, the compulsory marketing quotas of the new AAA, on April 17, 1936. p. 68-69
[Wagner..., a New Deal-era senator, had authored 1935’s Wagner Act requiring collective bargaining in the private sector.]
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/bc0404dd.html]


In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone." The Brookshire Times from Brookshire, Texas · Page 2

Has the case against Roosevelt, for murdering the Constitution, been proven?

 

[Contumacious]

Extremely popular and extremely successful.

Perhaps the most significant legacy of the FDR Administration would be the post-Lochner case law recognizing the fact that the Commerce Clause authorizes ...............

----------the adoption of the Communist Manifesto

.

Just one more of the ways Franklin Roosevelt destroyed the pillars on which this nation was built.

On April 12, 1937, the United States ceased to be a republic of limited constitutional government. The Supreme Court upheld the Wagner Labor Relations Act. No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply....now we would be a European model welfare state, in which the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens. The coda came when the court upheld the Social Security Act on May 24, 1937, and, then, the compulsory marketing quotas of the new AAA, on April 17, 1936. p. 68-69
[Wagner..., a New Deal-era senator, had authored 1935’s Wagner Act requiring collective bargaining in the private sector.]
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/bc0404dd.html]


In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone." The Brookshire Times from Brookshire, Texas · Page 2

Has the case against Roosevelt, for murdering the Constitution, been proven?

Yes, indeed.

The SCOTUS succumbed to FDR in order to avoid a Constitutional Crisis.

Justice McRyenolds dissenting opinion opposing the usurpation was CENSORED, SUPPRESSED, CONCEALED.

Judicial review is a fraud,

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's add this example of how the Justices bowed to the emperor, Franklin the Worst...er, First:


1. To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."


And he was correct.....then....



2. He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."


Atta boy, Hughes!!!

The US Constitution is inviolable!!!


Sort of......



3. Proof of Roosevelt's total control of another branch of government came just eleven months later: Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional.
Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.


Roosevelt destroyed the independence of the Supreme Court.



An America without checks and balances.

 

[Discombobulated]

What was that? Did you just mumble 'is not, is not'?

No, what you heard was me discrediting your sources as being invalid.

So....you don't understand the meaning of the word 'discredit'?

'is not, is not' does not 'discredit'.....and certainly not from a non-entity like you.

In fact, as you have shown yourself to be no more than a Roosevelt boot-licker, your attempt actually supports West's point.

Wrong again professor, I don't give a shit about FDR one way or the other. But I do despise people who purposefully mischaracterize history, particularly when they distort the facts for petty political or ideological purpose.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

History is not a secret.......it is if you rely on Jonah Goldberg for your information.

Rely on Goldberg? Goldberg's work is just one of the dozens written about the Progressive Era, you dope! Goldberg's observations are nothing new.

No you're wrong again, there are no legitimate historians who would support Goldberg's view.....just a lot of dummies on the internet.

Other works:

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek.

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany by Wolfgang Schivelbusch.

Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas Leonard.

Progressivism and the Doctrine of Natural Rights and Nature and History in American Political Development by James W. Ceaser.

How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government by Will Morrisey

Eugenics and the Progressives by D. Pickens.

Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Spiro.

Southern Progressivism by Dewey W. Grantham.

The Progressive Era and Race: Reaction and Reform by David W. Southern

And these are just a few of the works on my self. Let me know when you're ready for more.

BTW, Taft was a conservative progressive; that is to say, he flirted with the elitist notion that classical liberalism's traditional emphasis on natural rights and limited government were the historical relics of agrarian society. He became disillusioned with the movement after Teddy betrayed him and essentially put that maniac Wilson in the White House. Latter Chief Justice Taft authored judicial opinions that slapped down a number of especially egregious constitutional transgressions fancied by progressives, particularly those touching on immigration law.


See also:

Fascism Comes to America by Ralph Raico

The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse

I also have a few titles on my self written by leftist historians. Their view of the Progressive movement is generally more favorable, of course. But the author's of these works don't entirely white wash the influences of Euro-fascism on American progressivism or deny the striking parallels between the two forms of national socialism in historical practice. In truth, the only things that frustrated the implementation of some of the more, shall we say, adventurous aspects of the progressive agenda favored by its leading lights were the constraints of constitutional law, the prevailing influence of Christian ethics, the pervasive rugged individualism of the American character and the devastating revelations of WWII. Incidentally, progressivism's eugenics movement in America had a profound influence on the thinking of European fascists, on the German Nazis especially!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, what you heard was me discrediting your sources as being invalid.

So....you don't understand the meaning of the word 'discredit'?

'is not, is not' does not 'discredit'.....and certainly not from a non-entity like you.

In fact, as you have shown yourself to be no more than a Roosevelt boot-licker, your attempt actually supports West's point.

Wrong again professor, I don't give a shit about FDR one way or the other. But I do despise people who purposefully mischaracterize history, particularly when they distort the facts for petty political or ideological purpose.

Lair. You love such cretins, and you're one of them. No, wait! What am I saying? You're not one them. You're just one of their stooges.

 

[Discombobulated]

Rely on Goldberg? Goldberg's work is just one of the dozens written about the Progressive Era, you dope! Goldberg's observations are nothing new.

No you're wrong again, there are no legitimate historians who would support Goldberg's view.....just a lot of dummies on the internet.

Other works:

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek.

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany by Wolfgang Schivelbusch.

Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas Leonard.

Progressivism and the Doctrine of Natural Rights and Nature and History in American Political Development by James W. Ceaser.

How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government by Will Morrisey

Eugenics and the Progressives by D. Pickens.

Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Spiro.

Southern Progressivism by Dewey W. Grantham.

The Progressive Era and Race: Reaction and Reform by David W. Southern

And these are just a few of the works on my self. Let me know when you're ready for more.

BTW, Taft was a conservative progressive; that is to say, he flirted with the elitist notion that classical liberalism's traditional emphasis on natural rights and limited government were the historical relics of agrarian society. He became disillusioned with the movement after Teddy betrayed him and essentially put that maniac Wilson in the White House. Latter Chief Justice Taft authored judicial opinions that slapped down a number of especially egregious constitutional transgressions fancied by progressives, particularly those touching on immigration law.


See also:

Fascism Comes to America by Ralph Raico

The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse

I also have a few titles on my self written by leftist historians. Their view of the Progressive movement is generally more favorable, of course. But the author's of these works don't entirely white wash the influences of Euro-fascism on American progressivism or deny the striking parallels between the two forms of national socialism in historical practice. In truth, the only things that frustrated the implementation of some of the more, shall we say, adventurous aspects of the progressive agenda favored by its leading lights were the constraints of constitutional law, the prevailing influence of Christian ethics, the pervasive rugged individualism of the American character and the devastating revelations of WWII. Incidentally, progressivism's eugenics movement in America had a profound influence on the thinking of European fascists, on the German Nazis especially!

Thank you for the helpful list of irrelevant and discredited authors.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No you're wrong again, there are no legitimate historians who would support Goldberg's view.....just a lot of dummies on the internet.

Other works:

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek.

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany by Wolfgang Schivelbusch.

Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas Leonard.

Progressivism and the Doctrine of Natural Rights and Nature and History in American Political Development by James W. Ceaser.

How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government by Will Morrisey

Eugenics and the Progressives by D. Pickens.

Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Spiro.

Southern Progressivism by Dewey W. Grantham.

The Progressive Era and Race: Reaction and Reform by David W. Southern

And these are just a few of the works on my self. Let me know when you're ready for more.

BTW, Taft was a conservative progressive; that is to say, he flirted with the elitist notion that classical liberalism's traditional emphasis on natural rights and limited government were the historical relics of agrarian society. He became disillusioned with the movement after Teddy betrayed him and essentially put that maniac Wilson in the White House. Latter Chief Justice Taft authored judicial opinions that slapped down a number of especially egregious constitutional transgressions fancied by progressives, particularly those touching on immigration law.


See also:

Fascism Comes to America by Ralph Raico

The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse

I also have a few titles on my self written by leftist historians. Their view of the Progressive movement is generally more favorable, of course. But the author's of these works don't entirely white wash the influences of Euro-fascism on American progressivism or deny the striking parallels between the two forms of national socialism in historical practice. In truth, the only things that frustrated the implementation of some of the more, shall we say, adventurous aspects of the progressive agenda favored by its leading lights were the constraints of constitutional law, the prevailing influence of Christian ethics, the pervasive rugged individualism of the American character and the devastating revelations of WWII. Incidentally, progressivism's eugenics movement in America had a profound influence on the thinking of European fascists, on the German Nazis especially!

Thank you for the helpful list of irrelevant and discredited authors.

Not with a bang, but a whimper. . . .

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, so we all agree that the extremely popular Social Security is the number one item on FDR's legacy.

What would you say is next down the list?

Anyone?

Extremely popular and extremely successful.

Perhaps the most significant legacy of the FDR Administration would be the post-Lochner case law recognizing the fact that the Commerce Clause authorizes necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policies addressing such issues as employee safety, wage and compensation requirements, and consumer protection (see, e.g., West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), United States v. Darby (1941). Wickard v. Filburn (1942)).

This Commerce Clause jurisprudence reflecting the original intent of the Framers contributed to the formation of a modern American Nation bringing the country out of the 19th Century and into the 20th.

Jones, remember, I'm the real constitutional scholar on this board; you're the pretender as I've shown on a number of occasions. We both know that the so-called reforms listed in the above, those issues, those concerns, are the stuff of progressivism, which eschewed the Framers' original intent regarding the constitutional imperatives of limited government and the principle of natural, inalienable human rights.

You're a pathological liar and a statist thug.

 

[Discombobulated]

Other works:

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek.

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany by Wolfgang Schivelbusch.

Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era by Thomas Leonard.

Progressivism and the Doctrine of Natural Rights and Nature and History in American Political Development by James W. Ceaser.

How Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Reshaped the American Regime of Self-Government by Will Morrisey

Eugenics and the Progressives by D. Pickens.

Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Spiro.

Southern Progressivism by Dewey W. Grantham.

The Progressive Era and Race: Reaction and Reform by David W. Southern

And these are just a few of the works on my self. Let me know when you're ready for more.

BTW, Taft was a conservative progressive; that is to say, he flirted with the elitist notion that classical liberalism's traditional emphasis on natural rights and limited government were the historical relics of agrarian society. He became disillusioned with the movement after Teddy betrayed him and essentially put that maniac Wilson in the White House. Latter Chief Justice Taft authored judicial opinions that slapped down a number of especially egregious constitutional transgressions fancied by progressives, particularly those touching on immigration law.


See also:

Fascism Comes to America by Ralph Raico

The Free Market: How FDR Made the Depression Worse

I also have a few titles on my self written by leftist historians. Their view of the Progressive movement is generally more favorable, of course. But the author's of these works don't entirely white wash the influences of Euro-fascism on American progressivism or deny the striking parallels between the two forms of national socialism in historical practice. In truth, the only things that frustrated the implementation of some of the more, shall we say, adventurous aspects of the progressive agenda favored by its leading lights were the constraints of constitutional law, the prevailing influence of Christian ethics, the pervasive rugged individualism of the American character and the devastating revelations of WWII. Incidentally, progressivism's eugenics movement in America had a profound influence on the thinking of European fascists, on the German Nazis especially!

Thank you for the helpful list of irrelevant and discredited authors.

Not with a bang, but a whimper. . . .

Just goes to show that you can't learn as much as you thought from internet excerpts. Have you ever thought about reading a book? There are no legitimate historians who would characterize FDR as being fascist. None, never have been, never could be.

 

[konradv]

the constitutional imperatives of limited government and the principle of natural, inalienable human rights.

There's no such thing as natural rights without a state to enforce them. If I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by and watch me eat your kill in the hope that I might leave you some.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Let's add this example of how the Justices bowed to the emperor, Franklin the Worst...er, First:


1. To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."

STOP RIGHT THERE:
1.You are entitled to you own opinions but not your own facts, Chica!
2. The case you are reinventing, Carter v. Carter Coal Co, involved the Guffy-Snyder Act of 1935 which SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in1936. The Guffy-Vinson Act you cited which passed in 1937 was constitutional.
3. You incorrectly credit Justice Hughes for the quote in your #1 above. Justice Sutherland wrote the opinion of the Court, not J. Hughes, and J. Sutherland included that quote under item 21 of the holding of the Court.
4. The first part of the quote, the employer/employee bit, does not exist in the text of the decision. It is total contrived and one can only conclude its purpose was to mislead.

And he was correct.....then....

HANG ON:
1. Who was correct?
2. You claim J. Hughes was responsible for the quote, but, alas, you were so very wrong.
3. So the "he" you are actually referring to is J. Sutherland, the author of the quote.
4. That makes one hell of a difference in your "argument".

2. He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."

HOLD IT:
1. Justice Hughes "went on to say" NOTHING.
2. This quote was not the J. Sutherland "he" who was responsible for the initial quote you cited incorrectly.
3. J. Hughes' Separate Opinion started at 298 U.S. p317 below the Court's Opinion starting at p278.
4. This quote is from the Separate Opinion by J. Hughes, Not the Court Opinion by J. Sutherland.

Atta boy, Hughes!!!
OY!

The US Constitution is inviolable!!!


Sort of......

HERE WE GO:
Now we get to see how your disconnected pieces written by two Supremes rather than the one you falsely asserted fit with the next piece of your very untidy premise.

3. Proof of Roosevelt's total control of another branch of government came just eleven months later: Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional.
Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.

OH BROTHER:
1. The Court ruled the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 constitutional. That's one in a row for ya, Chica!
2. The actual case was the NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel at 301 U.S. 1. The case revolved around unfair labor practices in which Jones and Laughlin were involved in with coercion of their labor force.
3. Contrary to your assertion that the ruling allowed Congress to regulate labor relations in industrial plants, the Court ruled that the NRLB was within the boundaries established by the Act when it ruled the undue coercive measures against the companies labor force was impacting the flow of commerce as defined in the Act.
4. Just how in the Hell do you come to that conclusion without any evidence to displaying FDR's direct, or for that matter, indirect control of SCOTUS?



Roosevelt destroyed the independence of the Supreme Court.

AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION BASED ON YOUR REALLY SCREWED UP PREMISE!


An America without checks and balances.

Did your balance get checked at the door?
You're the one in need of checks and balances...on your integrity and imagination, Chica!