Would you support it if...

[2952-0-0]

So?

[Jake]

How? The way FDR tried to do it, no. But if nine vacancies came up during a conservative's term, I'd have no problem having nine conservatives replace those justices.

[A18]

I don't want conservative activists, but originalists would be good.

[MasterJedi]

I voted yes but I agree with what Jake said.

[Emsworth]

I would not support libertarian activists on the Supreme Court. Originalist strict constructionists (i.e., people who don't amend the constitution under the guise of interpretation) would be best.

To take an example, I agree with Justices Warren, Douglas, and Harlan that states should honor the privacy of individuals--their view is in accord with my ideological position. But their view, in my opinion, is not constitutionally correct; accordingly, I would not have placed them on the court.

The same can be said of the four conservative activists during the Lochner era: Justices McReynolds, Van Devanter, Butler, and Sutherland. All of them quite consistently struck down economic regulation by the states. But although I am quite opposed to excessive regulation of the economy, I would not believe that it should be struck down on constitutional grounds.

[dazzleman]

How? The way FDR tried to do it, no. But if nine vacancies came up during a conservative's term, I'd have no problem having nine conservatives replace those justices.

^^^^^^^^^
Jake, I agree 100%.  Perfect answer.

[Speed of Sound]

How? The way FDR tried to do it, no. But if nine vacancies came up during a conservative's term, I'd have no problem having nine conservatives replace those justices.

^^^^^^^^^
Jake, I agree 100%.  Perfect answer.

i conur, just switch the word conservative with liberal.

[© tweed]

No, because my party would no doubt pay political ramifications later.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes. I have said in the past that I would've supported FDR's court stacking plan.

[patrick1]

Yes. I have said in the past that I would've supported FDR's court stacking plan.

So you support illegal usupations of power?  How do these tactics differ with those of autocrats like the Pinochets you denounce.  Now where is that hypocrite poll;)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well FDR wasn't planning on the mass arrests and tortures of political opponents. My Machiavellianess has actually increased recently though, due mostly to the actions of the Republican Congressional leadership.

[The Dowager Mod]

No.

[patrick1]

Well FDR wasn't planning on the mass arrests and tortures of political opponents. My Machiavellianess has actually increased recently though, due mostly to the actions of the Republican Congressional leadership.

You cannot always presume good intentions on the part of those you support.

[The Dowager Mod]

The supreme court wasn't capped at 9 until 1869ish.

[David S]

I would not support libertarian activists on the Supreme Court. Originalist strict constructionists (i.e., people who don't amend the constitution under the guise of interpretation) would be best.

Seems to me that libertrians support strict constructionism. Why do you think they don't?

[Emsworth]

Seems to me that libertrians support strict constructionism. Why do you think they don't?

I don't think so at all. I just wouldn't support libertarian activists (i.e., judges who rule on the basis of their libertarian philosophy, rather than the Constitution).

A libertarian can certainly be a strict constructionist.

[Giant Saguaro]

This to me is essentially the same as asking, would you support the filling of a majority of vacant seats on the Supreme Court with individuals who fit your world view? The answer is, as with most, yes.

[angus]

yes.