Quote from: TwitchySeal on Today at 06:35:13 PM

Quote from: nullius on Today at 04:45:00 PM

How do you suppose that he got away with instant tyranny, as much as he wanted? (For pedantic correctness: Off the top of my head, I don’t know if the Roosevelt gold ban was one of the issues directly impacted by the court-stacking threat; but I do know that the Commerce Clause abuse that is nowadays institutionalized to Federalize everything did start with Roosevelt, for exactly that reason. And your Supreme Court should have, and otherwise would have promptly torn up everything from Socialist Insecurity, to quotas imposed on how much farmers could grow, etc., etc.)

A president can't just pack the courts though. His only real power is to stop them from being packed. For the number of judges to change, you need enough of the 400+ members of the House that represent the entire country and are elected every 2 years to make it happen. So, not really tyranny.

Plenty of dems have openly called to pack the courts in Congress, so Biden would have a say in court packing if there ever was a large enough margin. Biden owes people an answer on court packing, but of course he's already made it clear voters don't deserve to know his position prior to election day (how that makes sense is beyond me, I'm not even going to try to understand how he came up with that logic).

Chuck Schumer has also floated the idea of making DC and Puerto Rico states so that the senate can get 4 more democratic senators. Not quite democratic to change the rules when you don't get your way.