Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yavin4

(35,441 posts)
Thu Jan 4, 2018, 05:24 PM Jan 2018

If a Democrat re-takes the WH in 2020, this person has to be the Secy of State

For at least two years. Our international reputation is so severly damaged we will need a former president to re-assure the world that everything is back on track. Yes, I know precedent and all that jazz, but these are unprecedented times that we will live. We have lost so much that it may take decades to get things back on track.

We need to reassure our allies that we are once again sane, and we need a bold statement like this.


7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If a Democrat re-takes the WH in 2020, this person has to be the Secy of State (Original Post) Yavin4 Jan 2018 OP
K & R Iliyah Jan 2018 #1
Joe Biden would slso be avebury Jan 2018 #2
Obama as Secretary of State first, then Supreme Court as one of the rzemanfl Jan 2018 #3
Eleven justices? Staph Jan 2018 #5
Sounds like the right move to me. lpbk2713 Jan 2018 #4
Obama wouldn't take S of S job SCantiGOP Jan 2018 #6
I don't care what he wants to do. We're in a crisis. Yavin4 Jan 2018 #7

Staph

(6,251 posts)
5. Eleven justices?
Thu Jan 4, 2018, 07:42 PM
Jan 2018

FDR tried that. It didn't work.


From the Wikipedia entry on the U.S. Supreme Court:

Size of the Court

Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six "judges". Although an 1801 act would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, an 1802 act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.

In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine, where it has since remained.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to "pack" the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal. The plan, usually called the "court-packing plan", failed in Congress. Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.



Yavin4

(35,441 posts)
7. I don't care what he wants to do. We're in a crisis.
Fri Jan 5, 2018, 12:48 PM
Jan 2018

If we don't repair the damage done, there won't even be a SCOTUS.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If a Democrat re-takes th...