Skip to main content

View Diary: What's at stake: The SCOTUS and undoing The New Deal (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Utter misunderstanding (1+ / 0-)

    Glass Steagall can be reinstated now. But not if it is declared unconstitutional.

    I think that you are completely misunderstanding the issue.

    •  I think you need to reframe your argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cdembrey

      if you want people to understand it.

      Your title says "undoing the new deal" as if it is still the law of the land.

      What you mean is "completely removing any possibility that something like the new deal be reinstated."

      Related issue - asking us to do something because if we don't the court will permanently prevent something that likely won't happen anyway is weak.

      better to drop "New Deal" from your argument. It's confusing and gets in the way of what you are trying to say.

      No one in power in DC gives a s*** about the New Deal, Dem or GOP.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 03:48:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is still the Constitutional law of the land (1+ / 0-)

        You keep making comments that misunderstand the point.

        •  not sure what that means (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdembrey

          the new deal is the constitutional law of the land?

          that doesn't make sense to me.

          the new deal is no longer in existence.

          the only vestige is social security, and that is now on the ropes, GOP president or no.

          if you want to argue that a GOP president would be horrible for the SCOTUS, go for it. that makes sense.

          what doesn't make sense is referencing the new deal.

          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

          by mightymouse on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:31:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well (1+ / 0-)

            You're wrong.

            The New Deal Constitution remains the law of the land.

            The overturning of the Lochner Era jurisprudence is in fact the most important part of The New Deal.

            Look, not to offend you, but you simply seem to not understand what the New Deal Supreme Court did.

            Your comments simply reveal that. I suppose I should have quoted from my posts explaining that for those unfamiliar with the history.

            Live and learn.

            •  what is the New Deal constitution? (0+ / 0-)

              and this I don't get either:

              The overturning of the Lochner Era jurisprudence is in fact the most important part of The New Deal.
              That's not what they taught us in history class.

              maybe I went to bad schools.

              help me out here.

              An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

              by mightymouse on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:41:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I mean, overturning Lochner era jusisprudence (0+ / 0-)

              is not part of the New Deal at all, as I understand it.

              The New Deal was a series of programs and policies passed in the era 1933-1935, including WPA, social security, NLRB, etc. It was not a supreme court decision.

              Most of these things are now defunct or on the way there.

              I think you are using the term "New Deal" in a confusing way. Your diary would be more clear if you used a different term to describe what you mean.

              As best I understand, you are using the term "New Deal" to mean "the government has broad scope to regulate commerce."

              An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

              by mightymouse on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:58:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  here's wikipedia: (0+ / 0-)

                The New Deal:

                The New Deal was a series of economic programs implemented in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They involved presidential executive orders or laws passed by Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were a liberal response to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is, Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.
                It's confusing to use the term to describe court cases.

                An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                by mightymouse on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:39:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You understand wrong (0+ / 0-)
                •  you are saying the wikipedia entry is wrong? (0+ / 0-)

                  that is my understanding of "New Deal" as well.

                  I have never heard "New Deal" defined to include supreme court decisions. I certainly have never heard it defined to mean primarily supreme court decisions.

                  That is what is confusing about this piece.

                  thank you in advance for a civil response.

                  An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                  by mightymouse on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:09:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well (1+ / 0-)

                    I can only say you are not listening to the people who know.

                    The 1937 US Reports is the centerpiece of the creation of the modern welfare state spurred by FDR's battles with the SCOTUS of the time.

                    It's a pretty well known part of the New Deal history.

                    I can't tell you whether you should rely exclusively on Wikipedia, but I recommend not.

                    •  not sure what this means either: (0+ / 0-)
                      The 1937 US Reports is the centerpiece of the creation of the modern welfare state spurred by FDR's battles with the SCOTUS of the time.
                      I don't rely solely on wikipedia. jeez.

                      I am familiar with the FDR's problems with the supreme court. I never heard those decisions described as part of the new deal.

                      You seem to be using "New Deal" to mean supreme court decisions allowing greater government regulation of commerce.

                      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                      by mightymouse on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:35:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Without those decisions, the entire (0+ / 0-)

                        New Deal would have derailed by the Court by 1938.  Social Secuirty, minimum wage laws, Agricultural subsidies, the WPA.  All of it would have been invalidated by the Lochner-era mindset.  THAT is the point that Armando has been making both in the diary and in the comments, and the point which you are seemingly incapable of understanding.

                        Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

                        by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:08:30 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Those decisions ≠ "New deal" (0+ / 0-)

                          which is why I think he should reframe this argument. Undoing the New Deal is not at stake. The New Deal is over, never to return, no matter who wins, no matter who is on the court.

                          I do understand the importance of those decisions, thank you.

                          What I have a problem with is calling them "New Deal."

                          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                          by mightymouse on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:41:07 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

    •  Do you really think that anyone, from either... (3+ / 0-)

      Corporatist party wants Glass-Steagle back???

      The 99% want Glass-Steagle re-instated, but the 1% don't. So, realistly, who do you think will win???

      •  If Glass Steagall like regulation is (1+ / 0-)

        "unconstitutional," it does not matter who wants it.

        You keep missing the point.

        •  Even if there were All Liberals on the Court... (0+ / 0-)

          Glass-Steagle aint coming back.

          If the the Conservative Justices were to outlaw Glass-Steagle like laws, the Democratic Leadership would be happy! Then they could say to the faithful "We wanted to re-instate Glass-Steagle, but the nasty Republicans won't let us.

          There is too damn much FUD being bandied about by both sides.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site