A couple of days ago, on my German blog....I wrote up a piece on a developing show for the public TV system in Germany....called 'Germany Speaks'. The basic set-up of this is the belief by the leadership and intellectuals of Germany....that Germans can't come to a rational centerpoint on serious topics. Yes, they have the belief that you can produce a situation....a dozen facts....some argument, and then everyone would reach some basic conclusion (agreeable).
I kinda laughed when this was laid out because it means that both sides have to be tolerant of the topic and the outcome.
So the 23rd of September (Sunday) is the scheduled show. There are six topics. I imagine they will set aside roughly three hours on public TV that afternoon. They've put out surveys to poll people....in an attempt to bring in folks to some studio and discuss the issues.
All six topics are loaded. One of them is the intellectual idea being pushed by by various agenda groups to tax meat products more heavily....to persuade people to eat less meat. My brother.....the full-time engineer, part-time farmer....would likely ask what the heck they are smoking? How would adding a six or eight percent tax on T-bone....result in you eating less? German logic here....by intellectuals...is that anytime you tax something, people use less of it. It is basically true that the cost of living is now so high, that no one is much interested in having more than one or two kids, and a growing number of folks suggest no kids....so maybe the intellectuals have a small point on this.
But one of the six questions is this: is Trump good for America? Note, the question doesn't say good for Germans or for Germany.
The curious problem here for intellectuals in Germany....well....Hillary didn't win. Since November 2016, this has been a problem for them to accept and hour-by-hour, the Trump situation bothers them. Thanks to the use of public TV (ARD and ZDF)....they've kept their anxiety and stress at peak form (yes, 21 months straight now).
In some way, via this public forum, they hope to get the right discussion going and a large segment of German society (even the 30-odd percent who just don't think this is much of a thing to worry or have anxiety over) convinced to go one single direction.
My argument, if I got dragged into forum?
1. All elections, whether in the UK, Germany, France, Russia, or the US....have consequences. Someone wins....someone loses. In a democratic country with values....you kinda have to suck it up and move on with life.
2. This effort by the German public TV folks (ZDF and ARD) in early spring to do the comical news pieces on candidate Trump, and laugh over his speeches? Did you really think that made your viewers aware of the real situation developing in the US? Where did you get the update material? Washington Post, CNN?
3. After the summer smoke of 2016 cleared, and you (public German TV news) went on the remarkable news hype of a 90-percent of a Hillary win....how exactly do you think German viewers saw your coverage on the day after the election? Every single thing you predicted....failed. You couldn't even say why...other than suggesting that all these voters were 'stupid'? How 'stupid' does that make the public TV news media in Germany?
4. In the 500-plus days of the Trump administration and the three-million jobs created so far (anticipating another one-million additional jobs by spring 2019)....why did Bush or Obama not take the same route? Facts please. They each had eight years....yet they were not hyped up to do the job? Really?
5. After NAFTA went into affect, just how many US jobs left the US over the next decade? The general talk by business analysts goes between one and two million jobs. How do you think people remember the era? So when candidate Trump came around and discussed the terminal nature of NAFTA....people paid attention. Why didn't candidate Clinton discuss this? She had well over a year, and could not bring herself to talk about this problem.
6. The tariff woes? All President Trump laid out was a open path....no tariffs for any party. Ask the business folks of Germany (all industries) and the political folks....why they can't allow that to occur? If they can't explain this in one hundred words or less....you might need to fire them.
7. The American disconnect on the news media? From Republican voters, barely 15-percent think that the news media in the US is unbiased. From independent voters, it barely reaches 30-percent thinking they are unbiased. Even Democratic voters will agree only to around fifty-to-fifty-five percent of the news media is unbiased. Who reads the NY Times and Washington Post? Ask them what their current brand value is worth....on the last time they sold their operations. Who watches CNN? Right now....the Food Network is pulling in more viewers.
8. A disconnect on Washington solving problems? Here's the shocker....once you leave DC and go out into small towns and rural areas....the bulk of people tend to think that Washington is broken (they don't just mean the Democratic Party and the Republican Party....they mean the whole system). These people see Trump as a 'thug' against the entire system. They want the 'bull' turned loose in a crystal shop.
9. Go ask around what the 'red-pill' and '#walkaway' situations are about. These are former Democrats who are just fed-up and deciding on a new path as a Republican. How many? There's no real way to estimate this, but one might suggest a million-plus Hillary-voters from 2016....have walked away.
10. To the final emphasis here. A German doesn't need to worry much about this. In fact, to an American, it's odd that you want to drag this question up....instead of asking 'is Chancellor Merkel good for Germany'. The last time I looked....more than 60-percent of Germans polled....wanted a change in Chancellor. It's just odd how dramatic the public TV sector in Germany keeps wanting to hype the evil-Trump dialog....to keep focus on something else. You'd almost think.....well....that there was some stupid agenda tied to this forum question. Silly me....where would I get some crazy idea like that?
Saturday, 14 July 2018
Friday, 13 July 2018
This 'Hack'?
So, the simple facts....Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein came up today and announced that a dozen Russian intelligence officers were indicted by the Mueller team. These dozen folks? Members of the Russian GRU, or the intelligence-collection folks of Russia.
What they did? They found some point to hack into the DNC Congressional Campaign committee server.
This led onto the DNC big server, and then the Hillary Clinton campaign server.
How did this all work? You arrange one single email to flow in and it has an attachment. You click the attachment, and then it says to the server that it's fine and ok for a 'friend' to be sharing out data. Then the hacker can browse. So they sat there and read.
Then if you follow Rod's suggestion....the GRU guys used an insider email and sent the same link-up email onto the DNC big server, and later onto the Hillary campaign server.
The odds that they did the same thing in 2012 and 2008? Oh....well....yeah, it's best not to bring this up. I'm sure the FBI-idiots don't want to admit that this might have occurred before.
So all the big strategy papers and internal gossip? The Russians knew? The passed-along questions that Hillary might have gotten before the debates? Well, maybe the evil Russians got the passed-along questions, and passed them to evil-Trump. Oh....yeah, they probably sat there grinning.
But now you might get around to an odd question....what kind of protection did the Hillary server, the Hillary campaign server, the DNC Congressional Campaign server, and the DNC big server have? The likely answer? I don't think the FBI guys or Rod would like to answer that.
But let's get onto an interesting scenario. Did the US, or our NSA....attempt to hack into Putin's network in 2011? Oh, well....we would never do something like that...would we?
The dozen Russian guys? They are mostly laughing over the accusation. Why do this....the day that Trump flies out to Helsinki to meet Putin? Well, I'm guessing here that a IG probe will start up when Trump arrives back in DC, and asking Rod about the timing of this little episode. Beyond that...this is an indictment that will just lay there. The judge doesn't need to worry....there will never be court action.
And the Democrats? Well, this is what they really have to worry about. Out there, among thousands of emails....there's probably one or two fake e-mails with a second attachment to start up the next hand-shake situation. So this will likely never end. That's the amusing thing about this episode. As much as the FBI will hint that they got their evil Russians....well, it might just go into round two or three.
What they did? They found some point to hack into the DNC Congressional Campaign committee server.
This led onto the DNC big server, and then the Hillary Clinton campaign server.
How did this all work? You arrange one single email to flow in and it has an attachment. You click the attachment, and then it says to the server that it's fine and ok for a 'friend' to be sharing out data. Then the hacker can browse. So they sat there and read.
Then if you follow Rod's suggestion....the GRU guys used an insider email and sent the same link-up email onto the DNC big server, and later onto the Hillary campaign server.
The odds that they did the same thing in 2012 and 2008? Oh....well....yeah, it's best not to bring this up. I'm sure the FBI-idiots don't want to admit that this might have occurred before.
So all the big strategy papers and internal gossip? The Russians knew? The passed-along questions that Hillary might have gotten before the debates? Well, maybe the evil Russians got the passed-along questions, and passed them to evil-Trump. Oh....yeah, they probably sat there grinning.
But now you might get around to an odd question....what kind of protection did the Hillary server, the Hillary campaign server, the DNC Congressional Campaign server, and the DNC big server have? The likely answer? I don't think the FBI guys or Rod would like to answer that.
But let's get onto an interesting scenario. Did the US, or our NSA....attempt to hack into Putin's network in 2011? Oh, well....we would never do something like that...would we?
The dozen Russian guys? They are mostly laughing over the accusation. Why do this....the day that Trump flies out to Helsinki to meet Putin? Well, I'm guessing here that a IG probe will start up when Trump arrives back in DC, and asking Rod about the timing of this little episode. Beyond that...this is an indictment that will just lay there. The judge doesn't need to worry....there will never be court action.
And the Democrats? Well, this is what they really have to worry about. Out there, among thousands of emails....there's probably one or two fake e-mails with a second attachment to start up the next hand-shake situation. So this will likely never end. That's the amusing thing about this episode. As much as the FBI will hint that they got their evil Russians....well, it might just go into round two or three.
NAKED GUN: 2018 Style
I sat this morning and watched about 40 minutes of the Congressional episode yesterday with FBI agent Peter Strzok.
After you look back over the landscape, the basic story, and the testimony....you are left with this image of some federal employee who is a fairly active at shagging some other federal employee, and spends a fair amount of time on text conversations with his fellow paramour. I'd be guessing between one and two hours of every day was spent in text-chat....pretty nifty considering he's a government employee.
The problem is....normally, after something like this comes out (you being married and all), you end up going off (leaving the company or organization). In Pete's case....he just lingers around. He's lawyered up enough to figure you can't fire him. He intends to stay around. That means jokes being passed around behind his back, and marginal respect for the guy. At some point, some FBI guy will say something that ticks Pete off and there's going to be some event to occur.
Sessions? He can't do much of anything. He's stuck with a humper-dude....fixated on liaisons with the paramour. The House? They don't seem able to do much either. The President? He's basically decided to make a reality show out of this, and feature the Humper and the paramour in some fake reality, which people will laugh over because they seem so serious while in the midst of a comedy routine. In a way, it's the Trump production of Naked Gun with Leslie Nielsen. As much as Pete appears serious....he's just playing Inspector Frank Drebin, with the hots for Jane Spencer (in this case, the paramour).
After you look back over the landscape, the basic story, and the testimony....you are left with this image of some federal employee who is a fairly active at shagging some other federal employee, and spends a fair amount of time on text conversations with his fellow paramour. I'd be guessing between one and two hours of every day was spent in text-chat....pretty nifty considering he's a government employee.
The problem is....normally, after something like this comes out (you being married and all), you end up going off (leaving the company or organization). In Pete's case....he just lingers around. He's lawyered up enough to figure you can't fire him. He intends to stay around. That means jokes being passed around behind his back, and marginal respect for the guy. At some point, some FBI guy will say something that ticks Pete off and there's going to be some event to occur.
Sessions? He can't do much of anything. He's stuck with a humper-dude....fixated on liaisons with the paramour. The House? They don't seem able to do much either. The President? He's basically decided to make a reality show out of this, and feature the Humper and the paramour in some fake reality, which people will laugh over because they seem so serious while in the midst of a comedy routine. In a way, it's the Trump production of Naked Gun with Leslie Nielsen. As much as Pete appears serious....he's just playing Inspector Frank Drebin, with the hots for Jane Spencer (in this case, the paramour).
Thursday, 12 July 2018
CNN 'Shock' or 'Outrage' Factor
Maybe it's just me, but it just seems like that in a 30-minute period while watching CNN....you typically get at least three journalists or 'guests' who seem to be shocked or outraged.
I admit, I try to limit myself to no more than 60 minutes a week of CNN. Part of the problem is that they are mostly a Trump-network now....owned by the President and the bulk of the news delivered has to be Trump in some fashion. Another problem is that they bring on so many guests to be 'experts', and they are trying to drag you along to some conclusion....rather than just laying out the facts. Finally, I'll admit that CNN of today....is not the CNN of 2001. I'm one of those people who think their better work....was over a decade ago.
So onto the the topic of shock or outrage.
When I typically worked (yes, before retirement)....about once a month, you would walk into some situation where you were a bit shocked or outraged. It typically would involve some soap-opera event where Lieutenant Joe was arrested for indecent drunken behavior or Airman Snuffy had accidentally destroyed a $3,000 piece of equipment. You'd typically stand there with the associate, contemplating how this incident occurred, and the consequences that would follow. Maybe you'd have a follow-up discussion the next day over the event, and then it'd all be forgotten.
So over my thirty-six year career of work....I probably saw around 500 moments of shock or outrage.
The problem with the CNN usage of shock or outrage....if you were watching eight hours a day of their news....you'd reach the 500 number in approximately two weeks.
That would be like comparing a guy who drinks a Pepsi a day for thirty years, making for 10,950 events with the soda.....to a guy who drank the 10,950 sodas in six weeks (meaning that he had 260 Pepsis per day).
The long-term consequence? Well....once you get on the CNN program, it'd only take a couple of months to 'train' you on shocks or outrages being less of a big deal. Maybe in a year....nothing much would really shock you or outrage you anymore (even if your wife threw out all the beef in the freezer and put you on a vegan-diet).
So you start to look at 2020 (18 months away) and wonder....if all your shock and outrage is maxed out, what exactly can CNN market or sell if Trump goes for another four years? Yeah, that's a long pause for folks to ponder upon that little issue.
Then you start to look at regular people, who live in quiet spheres of life. You go to some Iowa farmer and his biggest shock or outrage is when the bull finally found the weak point in the fencing and escaped.
Or you have some housewife who woke up to realize the neighbor is doing a $2,000 landscaping job with four hefty and chunky Mexican guys who all go shirtless in the summer heat.
Or like my brother....waking up to realize the fifty-year old freezer in the back of the house finally 'died', and spending an hour of time sipping coffee and expressing 'shock' that it didn't last another ten more years.
At some point, CNN will have to reset the shock/outrage factor, and cut about 80-percent of the 'RPM'. Some doctor will come on....like a Doctor Phil-character, and chat for sixteen minutes on how to survive without all the shock or outrage.
Then we will realize.....there just wasn't that much to be shocked or outraged over.
I admit, I try to limit myself to no more than 60 minutes a week of CNN. Part of the problem is that they are mostly a Trump-network now....owned by the President and the bulk of the news delivered has to be Trump in some fashion. Another problem is that they bring on so many guests to be 'experts', and they are trying to drag you along to some conclusion....rather than just laying out the facts. Finally, I'll admit that CNN of today....is not the CNN of 2001. I'm one of those people who think their better work....was over a decade ago.
So onto the the topic of shock or outrage.
When I typically worked (yes, before retirement)....about once a month, you would walk into some situation where you were a bit shocked or outraged. It typically would involve some soap-opera event where Lieutenant Joe was arrested for indecent drunken behavior or Airman Snuffy had accidentally destroyed a $3,000 piece of equipment. You'd typically stand there with the associate, contemplating how this incident occurred, and the consequences that would follow. Maybe you'd have a follow-up discussion the next day over the event, and then it'd all be forgotten.
So over my thirty-six year career of work....I probably saw around 500 moments of shock or outrage.
The problem with the CNN usage of shock or outrage....if you were watching eight hours a day of their news....you'd reach the 500 number in approximately two weeks.
That would be like comparing a guy who drinks a Pepsi a day for thirty years, making for 10,950 events with the soda.....to a guy who drank the 10,950 sodas in six weeks (meaning that he had 260 Pepsis per day).
The long-term consequence? Well....once you get on the CNN program, it'd only take a couple of months to 'train' you on shocks or outrages being less of a big deal. Maybe in a year....nothing much would really shock you or outrage you anymore (even if your wife threw out all the beef in the freezer and put you on a vegan-diet).
So you start to look at 2020 (18 months away) and wonder....if all your shock and outrage is maxed out, what exactly can CNN market or sell if Trump goes for another four years? Yeah, that's a long pause for folks to ponder upon that little issue.
Then you start to look at regular people, who live in quiet spheres of life. You go to some Iowa farmer and his biggest shock or outrage is when the bull finally found the weak point in the fencing and escaped.
Or you have some housewife who woke up to realize the neighbor is doing a $2,000 landscaping job with four hefty and chunky Mexican guys who all go shirtless in the summer heat.
Or like my brother....waking up to realize the fifty-year old freezer in the back of the house finally 'died', and spending an hour of time sipping coffee and expressing 'shock' that it didn't last another ten more years.
At some point, CNN will have to reset the shock/outrage factor, and cut about 80-percent of the 'RPM'. Some doctor will come on....like a Doctor Phil-character, and chat for sixteen minutes on how to survive without all the shock or outrage.
Then we will realize.....there just wasn't that much to be shocked or outraged over.
The Fragile Nature of Democracy
About five years ago....the Pew Research Center did a survey, and found that fifty-seven percent of adults in the youth range (18 to 29).....had no real memory of Roe versus Wade (the Supreme Court case on abortion), which dated back to 1973. The general belief was that even though they had a total lack of understanding over the historical event.....they just felt it was "right" to stage a position.
This would be kinda like having a national discussion over making all cars stick-shift, or automatic....but having a majority admit that they'd never driven a stick-shift in their life, but they wanted to participate in this national cause because they felt it was "right".
I sat in a class recently with a fair number of Syrians and Iraqis, and the topic of Elvis came up. In German society, 99-percent of Germans will say they know of Elvis (even though he's been dead for 40 years). With the Syrians and Iraqis? Maybe two out of the dozen had heard of Elvis. The rest? Elvis was a total mystery.
You could go out today and ask a hundred adult Americans how the depression of 1929 started up, and if you were lucky....you might have five people who have a basic grasp of the historical event to give at least a marginal answer. The same would be true if you asked the same group about the 2008 financial crisis, and if they could give a simple three-line explanation as to what happened.
I won't say that people are idiots....it's just that they have a random memory scheme, and if something doesn't seem important.....then it's erased from their memory in a matter of seven days. Go ask a hundred people to describe the basic script to Star Wars I (the original), and the vast majority will rattle off a 10-line description....even though they haven't watched the movie in thirty-plus years. It was important in their mind to remember the Skywalker kid, the lusty princess, the Chewy-guy, and the Obi-dude with mystical powers.
Most people by age thirty will readily admit that they've forgotten more than half of what they learned in high school. I think if you tested fifty-year old college graduates....more than half of their knowledge base....which they paid $90,000 for....has evaporated.
But in the midst of all of this....a political dynamic is at play. The two parties and their 'gate-keepers' are busy trying to hype you up....over something that may not really be significant in your mind.
For example....you get forty people to show up for a pro-Mexican migration rally, against the evil Trump. You might discover if you talked to the forty folks.....that more than half of them have never met a Mexican in their life, except at Starbucks, or Burger King. You might even discover that only three of the forty have some type of friendship with a Mexican, on a first-name basis.
Another example....you get a hundred people to get hyped up over the Supreme Court nominee. So you ask the hundred to name the nine current members of the court....to find that only six can name all nine members. Then you find that forty could name five members. On Roe V. Wade? Well, you might find that five of the folks think Roe V. Wade is a rapper out of Detroit, and Roe is short for something but they can't remember what.
In the end, our fragile democracy is dependent....on a bunch of forgetful folks.....not remembering much, but being all fired-up over something (they just don't know what).
This would be kinda like having a national discussion over making all cars stick-shift, or automatic....but having a majority admit that they'd never driven a stick-shift in their life, but they wanted to participate in this national cause because they felt it was "right".
I sat in a class recently with a fair number of Syrians and Iraqis, and the topic of Elvis came up. In German society, 99-percent of Germans will say they know of Elvis (even though he's been dead for 40 years). With the Syrians and Iraqis? Maybe two out of the dozen had heard of Elvis. The rest? Elvis was a total mystery.
You could go out today and ask a hundred adult Americans how the depression of 1929 started up, and if you were lucky....you might have five people who have a basic grasp of the historical event to give at least a marginal answer. The same would be true if you asked the same group about the 2008 financial crisis, and if they could give a simple three-line explanation as to what happened.
I won't say that people are idiots....it's just that they have a random memory scheme, and if something doesn't seem important.....then it's erased from their memory in a matter of seven days. Go ask a hundred people to describe the basic script to Star Wars I (the original), and the vast majority will rattle off a 10-line description....even though they haven't watched the movie in thirty-plus years. It was important in their mind to remember the Skywalker kid, the lusty princess, the Chewy-guy, and the Obi-dude with mystical powers.
Most people by age thirty will readily admit that they've forgotten more than half of what they learned in high school. I think if you tested fifty-year old college graduates....more than half of their knowledge base....which they paid $90,000 for....has evaporated.
But in the midst of all of this....a political dynamic is at play. The two parties and their 'gate-keepers' are busy trying to hype you up....over something that may not really be significant in your mind.
For example....you get forty people to show up for a pro-Mexican migration rally, against the evil Trump. You might discover if you talked to the forty folks.....that more than half of them have never met a Mexican in their life, except at Starbucks, or Burger King. You might even discover that only three of the forty have some type of friendship with a Mexican, on a first-name basis.
Another example....you get a hundred people to get hyped up over the Supreme Court nominee. So you ask the hundred to name the nine current members of the court....to find that only six can name all nine members. Then you find that forty could name five members. On Roe V. Wade? Well, you might find that five of the folks think Roe V. Wade is a rapper out of Detroit, and Roe is short for something but they can't remember what.
In the end, our fragile democracy is dependent....on a bunch of forgetful folks.....not remembering much, but being all fired-up over something (they just don't know what).
Wednesday, 11 July 2018
Beware of the Evil Russians
There is a piece off Yahoo News (I usually discount them entirely for value)....but the topic is mid-term elections, and the suggestion by an 'expert' (Barbara Simons) that Putin has the opportunity to launch an assault on the election, and create a massive mess.
How? The basic idea is that so many states (five) have switched to an entirely paperless voting procedure....that you'd just hack in and flip the votes.
Course, in this article, they mentioned that the Russians have probed the registration listings in various states, and know who is, or is not registered.
I see several problems here.
First, the Russians might be brilliant enough to have an actual voter's listing, and have a couple of agents in the US who go and find people registered in two states or people who are illegally in the US and registered to vote. They could go and blackmail the people into voting for Trump-candidates. Blackmail, as we know....is a serious deal and these folks would open themselves up to Russian agents. (I know it's a joke, but play along).
Second, the Russians might have the right people to stand in and manipulate the voting numbers, and ensure a Trump win for various candidates. (I know it's a joke, but play along).
So, what we need to do...is fix the system.
First, a national ID card and a mandatory national database....so folks wouldn't accidentally register in two states and get Russian blackmail situations.
Second, establish a national minimum security situation.
Third, dump the registration rolls, and start fresh.
The sad thing here is that the Democrats will have to fall on the ground and agree to these procedures, or the evil Russians will take over the country, as Republicans. (I know it's silly, but play along).
Yes, all this fake stuff....to fix what they could have fixed a decade ago.
How? The basic idea is that so many states (five) have switched to an entirely paperless voting procedure....that you'd just hack in and flip the votes.
Course, in this article, they mentioned that the Russians have probed the registration listings in various states, and know who is, or is not registered.
I see several problems here.
First, the Russians might be brilliant enough to have an actual voter's listing, and have a couple of agents in the US who go and find people registered in two states or people who are illegally in the US and registered to vote. They could go and blackmail the people into voting for Trump-candidates. Blackmail, as we know....is a serious deal and these folks would open themselves up to Russian agents. (I know it's a joke, but play along).
Second, the Russians might have the right people to stand in and manipulate the voting numbers, and ensure a Trump win for various candidates. (I know it's a joke, but play along).
So, what we need to do...is fix the system.
First, a national ID card and a mandatory national database....so folks wouldn't accidentally register in two states and get Russian blackmail situations.
Second, establish a national minimum security situation.
Third, dump the registration rolls, and start fresh.
The sad thing here is that the Democrats will have to fall on the ground and agree to these procedures, or the evil Russians will take over the country, as Republicans. (I know it's silly, but play along).
Yes, all this fake stuff....to fix what they could have fixed a decade ago.
A Supreme Court Story
There are dozens of bits of history sprinkled over the 1929 to 1942 period of American history, which rarely get any mention today. So this is a short essay piece over this unique episode that occurred with FDR and his 'pack-the-court' strategy.
Shortly after his 2nd win, going into early 1937....FDR was a bit peeved over the challenges to his solutions via the court system. The Supreme Court was actually hindering and preventing various things from occurring. One could suggest that the court was heavily slanted by that point by GOP-appointed Justices of the 1920s, which would be true.
So what FDR decided to do....was to produce the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. He intended to pack the court himself. How?
Well....he'd just add more justices.
The draft bill would grant the President the power to appoint one additional Justice (for a max of six), for each member of the court over the age of 70.5 years old. As far as I know....no one has ever explained where the 70.5 number came from, and I suspect that he just looked over the court and figured this was the appropriate number.
So instead of nine Justices....you could have had a total of 15 (if this all played out).
The odd thing here....at least told by some historians....is that not only was the GOP against the bill, but various Democrats found the bill to destructive. My guess is that some sat there and asked if this was logical....why couldn't some GOP President come up in ten years and mandate another six extra Justices, and put 21 potentially on the court.
What happened? Well....one of the Justices reviewed the mess and privately on his own....just started leaning to support any measure that FDR had come up. This support, along with the effort by Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst to stall the draft law....basically ended the threat to the Supreme Court.
A lot of this was not exactly front-page news, and probably understood by the bulk of American society. In the decades after the event, historians got around to telling the story, and suggesting how close the Court to being heavily manipulated by FDR.
Shortly after his 2nd win, going into early 1937....FDR was a bit peeved over the challenges to his solutions via the court system. The Supreme Court was actually hindering and preventing various things from occurring. One could suggest that the court was heavily slanted by that point by GOP-appointed Justices of the 1920s, which would be true.
So what FDR decided to do....was to produce the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. He intended to pack the court himself. How?
Well....he'd just add more justices.
The draft bill would grant the President the power to appoint one additional Justice (for a max of six), for each member of the court over the age of 70.5 years old. As far as I know....no one has ever explained where the 70.5 number came from, and I suspect that he just looked over the court and figured this was the appropriate number.
So instead of nine Justices....you could have had a total of 15 (if this all played out).
The odd thing here....at least told by some historians....is that not only was the GOP against the bill, but various Democrats found the bill to destructive. My guess is that some sat there and asked if this was logical....why couldn't some GOP President come up in ten years and mandate another six extra Justices, and put 21 potentially on the court.
What happened? Well....one of the Justices reviewed the mess and privately on his own....just started leaning to support any measure that FDR had come up. This support, along with the effort by Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst to stall the draft law....basically ended the threat to the Supreme Court.
A lot of this was not exactly front-page news, and probably understood by the bulk of American society. In the decades after the event, historians got around to telling the story, and suggesting how close the Court to being heavily manipulated by FDR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)