What is it?
President Roosevelt tried adding extra members, through legislation
It has never been considered stackin to replace justices with someone of your own ideology through normal attrition.

What do you mean " he tried adding extra members "? Did he do it? If not, why not?

He didnt do it, which is why they say he tried to pack the court. Congress wouldnt pass legislation increasing the number of members to 12.
There wern't any vacancies, so he wanted to just add extra members.

And why was he denied?

The court has always had 9 members, and they didnt want to change it.

FDR was frustrated by the Supreme Court's declaring so many of his New Deal laws as unconstitutional. After a huge re-election victory in 1936, FDR assumed he had such a wide mandate that he could get away with "stacking" the court by adding new members (through a solicited act of Congress that he would sign) to "vote" his way when New Deal legislation was challenged in the SC. But FDR simply misread his mandate and overreached. The voters weren't with him and neither of course was the Congress. Even the staunchest Roosevelt defenders agree that he overreached and should not have tried for what amounted to tilting the balance of power too far.

Of course the Supreme Court is political. Sure, the justices themselves believe they are fair and impartial - but they were selected by politicians with a bias. This is why presidential elections are so important. When we vote for a president, we are voting for the type of supreme court justices he or she will nominate to the court.

Bush won the presidency so he has had the right to try to push the court in his way. As much as I hate what is happening/is going to happen in the SC as a result Bush's new appointments to the court (especially the replacement of O'Connor by Alito), I got over it after the crushing 2000 election. That's one of the reasons I worked so hard for Gore in 2000, because I knew this was going to happen (and that was one of our key pitches to the Nader voters, who usually laughed at us, telling us Roe v Wade would NEVER be challenged; guess they are laughing now?). We lost the war right there in 2000 - that's when you have to fight these things. Actually we had another chance in 2004 with Kerry but Kerry ran a largely inept campaign and it's hard to unseat a sitting president...and Kerry STILL came close to winning.

Andrew

The Supreme Court originally had six justices and at one point had as many as ten but was reduced to its present nine in 1869 by an act of Congress (check Wikipedia - I didn't know the exact dates either). The Constitution doesn't even mention a Supreme Court, only that the Congress is charged with creating the legislative system and that there is one. So the composition of the court is entirely up to Congress and the president who signs their bills.

Andrew

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_4.html

The left got a freebie with Souter.

Andrew, I respectfully disagree that Ralph Nader supporters had anything more to do with the 2000 elections than say, Pat Buchanan. They were both used by both sides to illustrate something, but never the simple truth. The simple truth is that the election would never have been won by Al Gore -- or John Kerry -- because it was fixed.

The "Keystone Cops" act by both parties after the fact is still unconvincing and still turns my stomach. I will drop the subject before I have to hug a garbage can. Perhaps, Democrats were just as convinced that "election fraud" could never happen, as the Nader voters were convinced that "Roe vs. Wade" was safe.

The Supreme Court is flawed. No question about it. During our nation's history, every backwards step this Democracy has taken has found a sympathetic ear somewhere in that big cold building. No, I cannot defend many things done "for our own good" by that group of mixed up old people.

On the other hand, it often comes down to this geriatric group to fix the mistakes of previous generations. They did bring Civil Rights to the fore over 50 years after they endorsed segregation and almost a hundred years after the GOP claimed to have made us more than a monochromatic society.

Perhaps, one day, they will be scrubbing our Constitution clean of all the manure this current group of urban cowboys have trucked in. It might take until 2100, but as they say, better late than never.

The 2000 election was lost by Gore, because a large group of Demo voters arent smart enough to fill out a ballot, that is designed by the demos.

And the demo election officials used the money that was suppossed to be used to educate local precient officials for other purposes.

What was the catalyst for this thread?

Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...

Hey, Magic_eye, I did not know that - thanks for the correction! (The Constitution leaves the court's composition entirely up to Congress, though. In theory, the Congress could abolish the entire US courts system tomorrow and replace it with a 3-person Supreme Court.)

Andrew

Or a 1 person court, and they also have the power, which they have never used, to remove a subject from court review.

This is a very interesting and educational thread. The Supreme Court has to be an odd number but now I'm wondering about what would happen if the court had 21 justices in it.

Gore won. Where'd anyone get the idea that Bush won?

Well, we did have 10 Supreme Court Justices for a while until the 1860s, so it doesn't have to be an odd number. A 5-5 tie would be the same as losing I imagine.

I have long ago accepted that Gore lost. Yes, the way Bush won was total BS in more than one way. The Supreme Court also should not have stepped in - their decision was highly irregular (in their decision, they were careful to say their ruling was a "one-time only" thing and not a precedent!!!). Presidental voting is a matter for the states, not the US courts, to decide.

And I have no doubt that Kerry lost. He certainly could have won with a good campaign, that much is clear, given how close Ohio was.

Andrew

"Gore won. Where'd anyone get the idea that Bush won?"

Yeah, just like Christine Gregoire won in Washington.

The difference is Bush won and he's in office. Gregoire didn't win and she's in office.

Gore/Lieberman, nope. Sore/Loserman, yep.

Skybill, you're being Sore Loserman about the WA gov. results.

It's amazing how politics colors our perspective on electoral outcomes.

Yeah, I guess I am, huh! Kind of the pot calling the kettle black. (can I say that without the ACLU getting pissed off?)

I just can't stand the bimbo! Her voice to me is worse than Joan Rivers and Rosie O’Donnell combined!

I rather listen to 100 women with long fingernails drag them on a chalk board for an hour than 10 seconds of any of the above mentioned 3!

How do you tell when a politician (all of them) is lying?

Their lips are moving!

Go nuts, Sky. Hate her, her voice, and everything she stands for to your heart's content. It's your right.

Skybill writes:
How do you tell when a politician (all of them) is lying?

Their lips are moving!

Does this include Bush???????

BTW, he stole the 2000 election, get it right.

Yep, according to skybill, gov tom mccall was a lying liar.

"He certainly could have won with a good campaign, that much is clear, given how close Ohio was."

Ohio, my friends, is where the fraud was this last election. Folks were turned away from polls, voting machines went down, voting machines were moved all over the state the night before the election, ballots were left uncounted, folks could not wait eight hours in line, etc. Florida was such a pathetic whitewash that Ohio was ignored by all but the most observant and fervent.

Few states have an election process that embraces the elderly, the single parent, the poor, the minority and the powerful white folk alike. Oregon does, but most other states have either gone to Diebold and simple fraud, or left the process in disarray with obsolete systems, or have sneaky ways to keep legitimate voters, usually of color, from the polls.

I guess the Supreme Court could do something about this, but I think, like most old white folks, they simply enjoy the power too much to look at how they use it. Their hands are dirty, but their diapers are clean.

Tom McCall was one of the greatest Governors in our nation's history, and definitely the best this region has ever seen. Whether you like Gregoire or not, that election was counted, recounted and settled. Remember, folks in Washington don't get confused when they run out of fingers for counting. That is a big problem for most Crackers, but not so much for our neighbors to the north.

This administration worked hard to discourage votes that might remove them from power.

(which no administration is supposed to do)

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4430#more-4430

This blog has followed the voting issues, almost from day one. There are serious voting issues, and we are suffering because of it.

Florida, by the way, has at least one county moving back to paper ballots with human readable markings. This is the only solid way to record votes. Counting them can still be an issue, but at least there is a record for the courts to deliberate over.

God, your quoting a "blog" as a source.
All voters should show voter ID when voting,
What about the Gore campaign to disallow military votes?

Take a look at that blog before you write it off. That blog, cites it's sources and publishes errors and corrections. Has done so on a regular basis from day one. The author of that blog has appeared on television, radio and in many relevant hearings as well.

These things differentiate it from some blog written by some guy who has something to say that may or may not matter.

The reason I linked to a "blog" is simple. Brad Freedman has a sharp focus on voting matters. His coverage is far more extensive and informative than your more typical traditional media sources.

Resolving our election process issues is not a partisan thing. It's broken and needs fixing. In particular, the electronic storage of votes cast needs to just stop.

Do VBM, and you don't need to hassle people for ID's, make them go to polls at specific times, etc... Just mail out the votes, collect them, verify them, then count them.

Vote by mail should be banned, except in a very few instances, IE disabled people etc.

If you dont think voting is important enouch to take a few hours to do it, then you shouldnt vote.

Vote by mail has by far the most potential for fraud, and it downplays the importance of voting!

Nwokie writes:

If you dont think voting is important enouch to take a few hours to do it, then you shouldnt vote.


Some people work two jobs and can't get paid time off from work to go vote on election day. (Unpaid time off? yes, that's the law I think in most places - but not paid time.) It's completely unfair to force people to, effectively, pay to vote.

Vote by mail has by far the most potential for fraud, and it downplays the importance of voting!

It doesn't downplay the importance of voting, and it increases voter turnout. And in nearly ten years of vote by mail in Oregon, it's worked extremely well. The fraud you worry about hasn't happened because there are basic safeguards in place to prevent it.

Andrew

"If you dont think voting is important enouch to take a few hours to do it, then you shouldnt vote."

And vote by mail allows me to do exactly that. The ability to sit at my kitchen table with the Voter's Guide and other materials, and discuss with my wife the pros and cons of each candidate and each issue has vastly improved the quality of each decision I have made on the ballot. It's not unusual for voting in this manner to take me an hour, sometimes almost two hours.

But staying with your idea of keeping voting at the polling place...would you support making Election Day a national holiday so that everyone can vote easily?

Sure, no problem with that, I would even go as far as to say it has to be a "paid" holiday.
Heck, with proof of voting, give the unemployed
an extra $50.00 in their welfare check.

Why is anyone giving the time of day to Okie regarding VBM, he doesn't even live in Oregon!

Poop, poop, poop.

We've covered this before here. we like VBM!
And I agree with Edsel, I do the same, and as I've said, I still deliver my ballot on election day, just in case.

Actually Washington uses VBM now too.
But it is unconsititutional, at least for presidential election, the constitution very explicitly names the first tuesday following the first monday in November as election day.

Like Edsel and Merkin, I also spend some serious time with my ballot and take it straight to the Elections Office on 11th and Morrison. In terms of achieving fairness, wide-spread access, transparency and the potential for a truly balanced turnout, Oregon has the best system in the nation. It provides a voice to rural and city folk alike.

Andrew is right. What about the single Mother who waits for hours in line until she has to pick her kids up from school? Sorry you waited so long, but your vote was unimportant. Too bad your priorities were with your family, and not your country. Realistically, thousands and thousands of voters in Oregon would not be able to leave work or family to cast a ballot. It can't be all that much different anywhere else, but other Americans are still living a lie because their elections are designed to exclude, not include, eligible voters.

Finally, discounting something because it is a "blog" is lazy thinking. KSKD does not post random horse apples, but finds sources of merit to back up his assertions. You would be well served to actually read the credentials of the author and delve into the facts, rather than pretend it is merely a boatload of herring, and shamble on blindly with prejudice.

We love vote by mail. It's like a new holiday for us. We have family and friends who get together with our ballots and we debate issues, look up stuff on the internet and it's all very energetic discussion. It they ever went back to polling places, we'd all get absentee ballots.

Btw, I think that the first state wide vote by mail we had was for a special election concerning Packwood leaving. On what would have been voting day, there was an ice storm. The turnout would have been very low.

Hopefully now that the Supreme Court has finally started to show some sense, it will enforce the constitutional requirement.

You want to change it,get a constitutional amendment.

Nwokie wrote:
But it is unconsititutional, at least for presidential election, the constitution very explicitly names the first tuesday following the first monday in November as election day.

You want to change it,get a constitutional amendment.

Don't need a constitutional amendment because the "first Tuesday after the first Monday" is not in the constitution. Congress could change the "Tuesday after Monday" law of 1845 tomorrow if they wanted to.

Andrew

Ok, get congress to change it, that should be easier, than just ignoring the law.

Oregon's Vote by Mail is not illegal. It has been challenged in court and the challenge failed. By definition, if the courts rule in your favor, it's legal.

Andrew

Yep, but you may have noticed, the Supreme Court has been changed.

Changed for the better???
I think not!

much better, still a ways to go, but it bases law on what the constitution says, not what some people want it to say!

And for all the neo-CONs that prescribe to what Reagan talked about during his 8 years. You use the Government for your bidding too! Isn't the Government HELPING you further your INSANE agenda???
Guess that's another FLIP-FLOP.....
HYPOCRITES!

Reagan said that the most scary thing is saying "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help." Ever since then the GOP is trying to make that phrase as true as they can.

That makes all the neo-CONer following DUHbya lovers look foolish!

Any system can be exploited. When we use polls, the votes cast are aggragated in time and space. This means, if one is wanting to make trouble, the effort is more likely to pay off.

VBM is distributed in both space and time. Votes can be cast over a fairly long time period and they are cast in more than one place. Essentially, the tricks used at polls are useless!

One person, wanting to commit fraud, could sign some ballots and have those get caught by the signature check. They could mess with the mail, but that's got stiff penalties and the system itself is solid, having been time tested.

Postal workers could lose ballots, but that kind of thing is tracked, leading to corrective action. Also, many elements of the postal system, are done with observers in the form of people and cameras, so that's pretty tough to do.

Also, the votes are double sealed, so manupulating them only results in coarse changes. Losing a bunch of ballots from a district that leans one way or another will degrade both sides, making only the difference in vote numbers significant. Given the obstacles, this is hardly worth the effort.

The distribution over time has one other artifact I really like: Since voting happens over a period of time, last minute messages have less impact. Candidates have to stay on message and keep the pressure on through the final stretch. Last minute, affect the voters, shock and awe, tactics are more limited in scope. IMHO, this is one of the very best things about the system.

Finally, VBM does have a solid paper record of the vote that is both human and machine readable. We do count them with machines, which I don't like that much, but we also audit them and this process happens under observation.

All in all, it's very solid.

I do miss the polls though. I don't miss them enough to reconsider VBM, but I do think we lose some civic oppertunitites for older people and students to get involved in the process. Of course, they are now freed to engage in advocacy, transport people, help deliver votes, etc...

On that last one, people helping to deliver votes is an obvious fraud technique that's already been used. Either deliver it yourself, as Mrs M and I do, or make sure it's deposited in a secure mail receptacle.

On the legality, I've a question or two:

1. Having seen the Supreme Court changed, don't those who say they want the court saying what the law is, really mean they want judgments they agree with?

2. How exactly do we determine what the law actually is? Some will say literal readings, including every word, etc... But, words are not as precise as we want them to be. This is most of law school, establishing the meanings of things!

Let's look at some law:

Bill of Rights

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's one sentence! Should be a no brainer right? Clear as day. Just have the courts tell us if we are in compliance or not right?

Does this mean we have a right to bear arms period? If so, why the preposition that frames the remainder of the statement of law? What do the words regulated and militia contribute to "the right of the people"?

And let's talk about "arms". When this was written, we had basic handguns and rifles, cannons, various blades, bombs, oil, flame, etc...

What does that mean today?

Automatic weapons, biological, nuclear, etc?

So, does that mean everybody has a right to keep these kinds of weapons handy, just in case? Is a militia the same as a military? If so, why the diminished form then. The implication is limited military right?

If it's limited, then does that not suggest the arms that "people" "have the right to bear", is a subset of the possible spectrum of arms at any one time? If not, why the distinction then?

There is another way this could go as well. Maybe we do have an absolute right to bear arms, but we also cause harm by doing so; therefore, the right must be "well regulated" and justified in the form of a "militia" so as to make sure all respect the arms and treat them accordingly. There is a civil service element to this, in the interest of the common good, that trumps just being able to have whatever gun we want and use it at any time we want.

I bring this up, not to go off on a gun control tangent, but to illustrate clearly why law needs to be interpeted, put into context and applied to our behavior.

Asking our courts to tell us what the law IS, is an elementary misunderstanding. The law, IS a tool by which we regulate ourselves in a just and true manner. The law is the result of our deliberations. The implication being clear: we don't always get it right, so we need to continue to work on it and make sure we've a process in place to insure this work is in the interests of all, not just a select few.

Sorry for length, but I'm gonna write this again:

The law is but one of four primary tools by which we can regulate our behavior. Those tools are: Law, social norms, money, and physics.

The implication here is clear as well; namely, the law is not some absolute thing. If it were, the other forces of regulation would not be necessary would they? Just pass the right law and the problem is fixed right?

We all know this is wrong.

I've told you what the law actually is. Now we can get to what it means and if that meaning is relevant and just. That's what our courts do.

Does anyone here really think that "voting irregularities" are unique to states where the election was close? Of course not! What an illogical opinion to hold! In 2000, all the cracks in the Florida system came to light because the election was close, and people looked for those cracks. Same thing in Ohio. I'm confident that if you looked, you'd find less-than-ideal circumstances in many, if not all state's voting systems. The difference is that no one cares who was "disenfranchised" in Idaho or Vermont, because one candidate won with such a huge margin that the irregularities couldn't have changed the outcome. Election results need to be certified after a predetermined process of recounts occurs. Then, I think the only other remedy should focus on the next election. The bottom line: problems probably exist everywhere, but we can't let that bog down the government when an election is close; we should move on.

The worst problem in Florida in 2000 wasn't necessarily the voting system (which, I concur, was as flawed perhaps as many other states, Oregon excepted). The real problem was the vagueness of the laws governing what HAPPENS when an election is that close. How do you recount it? It wasn't well enough defined. That's what all the lawyering was about for the month after that 2000 election.

Ohio in 2004 was very close but not really close enough to blame voting irregularities. Ken Blackwell did some sleazy things in 2004, but I wouldn't say they were flagrantly illegal. They pushed the boundaries, as many partisan secretaries of state do all over the nation. It looks bad but it's pretty much the norm, like it or not. There is a political advantage to having your party win the Secretary of State's office.

Andrew

I agree with your first paragraph. We need to clearly define the recount process PRIOR to an election. But ballots should never be "interpreted" if the user filled it out wrong. If you can't fill out a ballot accurately, I am frankly not interested in your political opinion anyway. That's why I don't lose any sleep over it.

So, how then to tally the votes?

Bob, the voter, makes a mark right? Then Jane the counter, or Otto the machine must then INTERPET said mark to understand the voter intent, for that particular vote cast.

I really think you are getting at is good standards that are clear where fringe votes are concerned. If so, I completely agree.

That is what I'm getting at. what I mean is that not much is left to interpretation when a ballot is clearly filled out. It's the hanging chads, and worse, the assumption that the voter must have meant he wanted the Democratic Presidential candidate, even though the selection is left blank, because he voted for Democrats elsewhere on the ballot. that's the kind of creative "recounting" the Supreme Court halted back in 2000.

I fail to see how a hanging chad - where the voter clearly punched out a vote but the chat did not fall off - is the voter's fault.

Andrew

...which does introduce interpetation does it not?

BTW: This is one of the reasons we should not be using mechanical systems to change the paper media, other than for pigment delivery.

"Hanging" chads are disallowed in recounts, because on punch ballots, after being handled a few times, they can be broken, and its impossible to tell if one was punched, or just popped lose through mishandeling.

Its pretty basic, that after you punch your card, to make sure the back is clean, IE no chads hanging.

I don't like the chad thing period. The most basic means of recording a vote are the best means. Voter, marker, paper.