Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (69)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Elections (37)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Climate Change (30)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (29)
  • Science (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Media (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Spam (18)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • International (15)
  • White House (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site