zlacker

That will never happen. FDR's own party shit bricks when he tried to stack the Supreme Court. He got his pee-pee smacked hard.

>>refurb+(OP)
FDR won, the supreme court backed down and FDR was able to execute his programs.

>>danthe+53
And later he committed one of the worst civil rights violations by the federal government (the bulk of the injustices against the Indians were done by the states)

>>dnauti+05
> the bulk of the injustices against the Indians were done by the states

Maybe, and maybe that means that the Japanese internment was worse then anything the federal government did to the Native Americans.

I mean, it's not like native Americans were forcibly relocated from their homes into federally designated lands for a handful of years like the Japanese... oh, wait...

>>refurb+(OP)
> That will never happen. FDR's own party shit bricks when he tried to stack the Supreme Court. He got his pee-pee smacked hard.

It didn't happen then, but that doesn't mean it can't happen now. For several decades, the Republicans have played political hardball to pack the courts in their own way [1]; I doubt that was a factor nearly a century ago.

[1] bitter obstructionism to maintain vacancies until they have the power to fill them with their own picks, selected primarily for ideological reliability.

>>refurb+(OP)
we're about to enter a very different phase imo

>>dnauti+05
Seems very relevant, I’m a fan of FDR and this is absolutely necessary to talk about.

the feds vs states thing seems like a distinction without meaning, tbh, the federal government certainly intended the states to deal with natives as they did, and there is absolutely no shortage of crimes done by the federal government itself (treaties broken, allies backstabbed, lands taken, literal genocide, fucking DAPL)

>>refurb+(OP)
FDR got things done in spite of, not because of, his party. democrats have never been particularly good at passing progressive legislation without someone in the drivers seat.

>>ardy42+Oa
You are literally changing the definition to fit your editorializing, that's about as radical as it gets.

>>creagh+hK
> You are literally changing the definition to fit your editorializing, that's about as radical as it gets.

Eh, if the definition of "court packing" is so narrow that it only covers things nearly exactly like FDR's proposal, then I don't consider it a very useful term.

If it makes you more comfortable, feel free to replace "court packing" in my comment with a term that's general enough to encompass FDR's proposal and the Republicans' recent tactics.

>>monadi+aE
The federal government was supposed to only execute its enumerated powers, which could be expanded by passing amendments.

Instead the federal government can do anything it wants. It's why we have the drug war, DEA, huge national debt, broken medical system.