1 Episode results for "Deniro Sisley"

2187 - The Hidden History of the Supreme Court & the Betrayal of America w/ Thom Hartmann

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

58:46 min | 1 year ago

2187 - The Hidden History of the Supreme Court & the Betrayal of America w/ Thom Hartmann

"You are listening to a Free Berge of majority report with Sam Cedar to support this show and get another fifty minutes daily program go to resort. He Dot S. M. Please Dhamma Monday Monday September thirtieth two thousand nineteen. I'm Michael Brooks on Michael Sam Hybrid Monday. It's Jewish holidays. The day's Sala Follow Sam making me be a bad half. Jew Jamie bad full Ju. We're working. He's repentant. Hopefully I went to my grandma's house last night. Thank you very much for a nice. I'm sorry Husham. That was my impression of Sam but I can't promise to speak nicer about Chuck Schumer on today's Thom Hartmann Sam just I interviewed him. Radio legend Tom -partment. They're talking about impeachment other important things going on in the news. Rudy Giuliani. He said that Mike Pompeo pushed him to open the just false investigation Joe Biden Ukraine does not to say that Joe Biden's ends kid didn't get a job that is clearly nepotism dropout Joe Dropout Joe Trump reportedly worked with two off the books lawyers to pressure you train in for damaging information about Joe Biden Schiff is planning on asking for documents from Rudy trump's on void Ukraine resigns New Partnership announced between California and China conciliated by former California Governor Jerry Brown on the climate crisis Barbados Prime Minister Cheese incredible she spoke with absolute courage about US interventionism in Venezuela at the UN General Assembly Lindsey. Graham is so indignant. Bernie Sanders has a lead in Nevada is time for a bunch of other candidates should drop out pieces and new speculation that a endorsement might be going in the right direction but it's all speculation all that and much much much more on today's majority report folks. I have never been somebody who has I like Robert De Niro. He's great. I think when he says F. Trump okay okay doesn't do anything for me the last time he did it at the tonys. What did do something for me. was that the these guys in. Staten Island took down like they're goodfellas posters authors in their houses like beat them baseball bats night. That was awesome that I loved but look it's cool. I have you know I'm also not judging any but like you know if that's your thing if it's Cathartic for you great obviously F. Trump I also if it personally upset trump. That's terrific but I don't care about this sort of stuff. It doesn't do anything for me. This did do something for me. This was Robert Deniro on reliable liable sources of Brian stelter now. There's actually a kind of serious point to be made here for what it's worth. I mean it's a serious point. We've made plenty of times but it's worth revisiting visiting and Brian stelter getting upset or I should say uptight is funny. Check this out. This guy is should not be president period and when you say that folks on Fox come after you I remember the Tony say that that I like that just like oh trump's John Fox but ever do like really really even have time for this stop it. I thought you're going to the contrast in demeanor. 's The contrast yeah well. I mean this is this is this is like a it's not exactly heat. I mean this is. This is a new movie. I mean this is the beginning of a trailer of like he was a neurotic newscaster who followed boring media stories. He was an ex con. Somehow mouth like basically Deniro needs that somehow it's like. Deniro has gotten out of jail and somehow has been allowed to leave the the mafia because he's like such a boss that they're just like bobby whatever's characters you can leave. It's no problem he is somehow scored an internship on CNN and probably through his son. His son is clean. His son is legit and wants his dad to get legit in the last phase of his career. He's interning on reliable sources says stealth a total wuss bag and like can't get the girl he wants something so stelter needs to teach deniro the news business business to meet his parole requirements and Deniro needs to teach stelter how to be a man. I just gave you the script all right the hell out of that sounds like a great movie all right. Let's watch this says. This guy is should not be president period and when you say that folks on Fox come after you. I remember the Tonys when he got up there and cursed a lot of racism awesome fucker. Kra So it's not an FCC but is still a Sunday morning well. We're used to go that lacey. Somebody how do we are. We are in a moment in our lives in this country. Where this guy is like a gangster. He's come along and he's said things done things we say over over and over again. This is terrible. We're in a terrible situation. We're in a terrible situation and this guy just keeps going on and on and on without being stopped. Let's break. Let's commercial with Robert De Niro in just a moment. I Love Deniro Sisley. Yeah whatever dude dude but you know. It's it's it's funny because I thought the Deniro did something. I think it was before the election that a bunch of people like I remember the most embarrassing thing more than more embarrassing things I've ever seen in my life was David axelrod quote tweeting it and being like he's in New York. You got a problem with that. It was just like it was so embarrassing that you needed to like. Put your phone down and go outside and take a walk and try to forget that that you saw that but in that interview I actually think that's very revealing because you know if what it's worth whatever else you want to say about Robert De Niro. He's that that's coming from the right place. We have have a disgusting dangerous president. He hasn't been held in check. He's grotesque. He just keeps going and going going. All of this is one hundred percent true and you're uptight because 'cause I used a boo boo word. Whatever dude do we know who deniro does support colors for me a little bit that would call her for me to but my my guess would be that he's probably my guesses. He's like a guy who's probably not gonna Taylor swift it. He probably won't even endorse until after the primaries near Mess with Katy Perry. Yes Deniro joined the essay. That would be awesome. Doubt Danny need to veto is closer to doing that but maybe he could get him on board. I feel like Danny Danny Devito India say oh what I mean I I'm not. I'm not trying to spread I. I just know that Danny devito he should join. Danny does a legit. Danny Devito is more close to like. Danny Glover like these are like serious like yeah all right. Sam Loves to read ADS. Let him bathe you in one three. It doesn't matter if you haven't barbecue and your backyard God I would love to have a backyard backyard. You have like movie nights out there. You can setup. I saw a guy actually I saw a walking in my neighborhood somebody had projected a TV onto the wall next door and they were sitting out like on they had a deck. Imagine having beautiful joy bird outdoor furniture joy bard has it all where they you got that one of a kind furniture that you can be you can actually craft to your own unique taste aquatic blue or indigo a love seat the hottest read if you can dream it. Joy Bird can make it a reality got rich buttery leather to the plush velvet you've ever. Nfl You can find the fabric the texture the color that's right for you. Joy Bird even offers a range of kid and pet friendly upholstery options that stand the test of time plus. They have free personal design consultants. They help you nail down your perfect design and three hundred sixty five day home trial so so if you don't like your couch after three hundred thirty days of sitting on it you can return it and you can return and it completely free within two weeks delivery. I have said this before but we got a joy bird store around around the corner and a to go in there and check in daydream. See how joy bird can help you design your dream space. Make your furniture at your own. Joy Bird Dot Com. Tom Slash majority twenty-five that's joy bird dot com slash majority twenty-five to create the furniture that brings you joy today. Joy Bird heard dot com majority to five and you get twenty five percent off your first order by using the code majority twenty-five twenty-five again joy dot com slash majority twenty-five check it out. You're GonNa love this stuff and then you can make it your own. That's what's amazing amazing about it. Most of these places are pretty rigid. Joy Bird you develop your own furniture. I love it also today. Show supported by carry. Oma what they do is they marry old school designs with new school ethics. check these bad boys out this reminds me of when I was not just a kid but like a young young man they want get your shoes that you wear to be made responsibly feel crazy comfortable and provide effortless style like these are the classic high top sneaks. I got mine in a black leather but they have had brown leather. They got canvas and they make their sneakers by hand with premium natural materials there canvas made from cotton source via fair trade initiatives the cleaner premium leather which is made with water. That's been reused and treated with zero bureau chemical waste output. They're out soul is even made of natural raw rubber plus. They're shipping footprint bounce zero offsets which is amazing consider they ship worldwide and here in US and they even have expressed shipping and can deliver shoes and just two to three business days for any reason. They don't fit perfectly. You can return them free of charge. These things are incredibly comfortable super stylish which is important because I'm trying to up my look and like I say it's they're they're. They're they're made responsibly plus. These are much more they'd be much more support. Look at these the Solon here sweet. I love these sneakers. They become my go-to and I I have a problem right. We got a he can't hear Michael. What he's saying. He's giving you the like first of all you should wear those. They look cool and I'm this. I've got a little bit of sneaker head credibility this. I I even have a sneaker coffee table book at my apartment and from the Gulf whereas you get those about New York's sneaker culture from the seventies to the ninety ninety was an exhibit at the came before the exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. I point those look great. You should wear them. I do wear them but I had this dilemma now like we're like. I've never felt this with sneakers before. I don't want to get him dirty so like I'm has it into where you gotta get two pairs. You gotta get your fresh to death pair that you only wear for special occasions and your other pair that you get scuffed a little boom. I'll do it and for a limited time. Our listeners can get exclusive fifteen percent off your first. I pair carry Yuma sneakers. Go to carry Yuma DOT com slash majority to get fifteen percent off. That's carry huma dot com slash slash majority for fifteen percent off today. Get your two pairs right. The what did you call them. The afresh to death pair yeah and then you get your pear that you can scuff up which by the way if you do it right and those shoes look cool enough you can scuff them up with character. They're still gonNA look really good. Love it and lastly this program is sponsored by Bee outfit that that allows me to have such high quality dental hygiene. What's the best way to ease back into a PO- summer. Routine simplify the morning and the evenings with an electric toothbrush from quip quip has timed sonic vibrations that give you an effective claim but gentle on you're sensitive gums in two minutes twice a day at times at four you gotta gotTa. Take Care of your gums folks. This is where all the problems happen happen and it has a multi use cover that works as a stand and mounts tumors puts you brush front and center. You never forget to do it. It's super convenient Vini to do it because this is not one of those bulky electric toothbrushes that are falling all over the place drop into the garbage by your pedestal sink. It's not like that. The design is incredible. It's lightweight. It's compact can also bring it with you on a on an overnight trip. Get an extra one. Leave it at a friend's sows. Brush heads are automatically delivered on a dentist recommended schedule every three months for just five bucks makes it super easy. Send you also toothpaste you you the whole point of brushing teeth. You gotTa make it a habit. You GotTa do it all the time so you gotTa make it easy and you gotTa make it effective. Bom Boehm Quip. That's why I love it and it looks cool. They do like every coal person. I've ever met the W- The deal that you know when I don't WanNa get too explicit but we walk into someone's bathroom and you see a clip boom. I know I know this is. GonNa work out why I love quip and it's perfect for getting back back into a routine. I told you my sister. I imagine that get a cop. I got a compliment from her dentist because I got her. Equip starts to just twenty five bucks. If you go to get get quip dot com slash majority right now you can get your first refill pack free. That's your first refill. Pack free at get quip. GATT Q. Ip. I P DOT com slash majority back to Michael. Thank you SAM. I wonder if Thom Hartmann uses quip but we do know that Thom Hartmann is a great broadcaster historian progressive. Sam just record this interview couple of days ago. It's fresh fresh. It's about Tom's new book. A hidden history of the Supreme Court and Portrayal of America sounds about right all right back to you. Sam We are back Sam Cedar on the majority report on the phone. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome back to the program. The number number one talk radio liberal talk radio hosts to Progressive Talk Radio host in the country author of multiple bestselling New York Times bestselling selling books and a personal favorite of mine and in many respects a a teacher of Mine Thom Hartmann then welcome to the program. I've been learning from you SAM to for years. That's very sweet of you to say but honor to have you as a friend and colleague well. Thank thank you so much for joining us and you have you've basically started a series of books on on the hidden history basically hidden history pamphlets and you've come out one for one that is for October of of this year which frankly couldn't be more timely as we enter into the twenty twenty twenty election and a in trying to get a sense of you know what what's at stake here and in some respects him we should talk about about this too that you know maybe we maybe a little bit late in terms of the stakes and your book provides perhaps a corrective for that but that is you have a history of the Supreme Court and the betrayal of America. I want to go go through it. Obviously because you provide a an extensive you've history obviously of the of the Supreme Court but in in what respect do you perceive it as having when we look at the totality of the history history of the Supreme Court in what respect is betray America well. There's there's three kinds of story lines that go through the through the book. The first is how the Supreme Court rose from being basically the court of last resort unnecessary important function of government to being the most powerful of the three branches of government and they did that by season of power that was never granted them in the constitution and that most was to the founders didn't think they had until they asserted in eighteen o three and President Thomas Jefferson totally freaked out the second fascinating pieces is this that involves the betrayal of America is how the Constitution explicitly says in Article Three Section two that the Supreme Court it's not only is to be regulated by Congress and that would be as to how many members it has you know when they need and what their budget is where they need all that kind of stuff but also the congress can pass legislation and put specific exemptions into that legislation on which the Supreme Court may not rule all congress can pass along this is called jurisdiction stripping or court stripping it has happened in our history congress can pass a law and they can build into that law sentences simply says the the Supreme Court may not rule on the constitutionality of this and Congress has failed in in Ricard in a big way and and then the third hurt is is the politicization of the court which really started a big way with the Nixon Administration and seventy one the Powell memo and then seventy two Nixon puts Lewis Powell on the corden seventy six and seventy eight in the in the Buckley versus Vallejo decision and the first national bank versus Belotti decision which Lewis Powell authored the court rules in seventy six that if a billionaire wants to own a politician or throw hundreds of millions of dollars into into a political campaign or for lobbying that that is that cannot be regulated by the government it it it overturned a whole bunch of good government laws that were passed asked literally from nineteen. I was seven right up through the APP right after Nixon bribery scandals and seventy eight in the first national bank case a apply that same logic to corporations and then titled Altogether in Neat Little Bow in in two thousand ten with citizens united so we've got and and so as the court acquired this power and as it gave this power to wealthy people incorporations the the the the Republican Party in large part and in part because of their shock over the nineteen fifty four Brown versus board decision in the Nineteen Nineteen seventy-three Roe v Wade decision decided that they were going to get control of frigging Supreme Court. We're GONNA take this thing back and they did it by rigging presidential elections and in the book document how Richard Nixon committed treason to become president president sixty eight by blowing up Linden Johnson's peace deal with South Vietnam Dirksen the Republican leader at that time acknowledged was treason. We what we didn't hear the tapes of this until fifty years after LBJ died but they're out there now how Ronald Reagan committed treason than nineteen eighty to become president cutting a deal L. We now have the testimony of the president of then president of Iran who said that the Reagan campaign approach them and said if you guys will allow the hostages until November until collections actually held onto them until January. They released them the to the second the minute that Ronald Reagan put his hand on the Bible be sworn in if you guys Lang Oh hang onto the hostages cars humiliated will make sure that you get all the spare parts in weaponry that you need because they were they had all American can the military infrastructure and and the shy has been overthrown and then how George W Bush his daddy had several friends on the court and they went to bad for George stopping the recount in Florida in two thousand a recount the New York Times actually did it a year later. They found sure enough. Al Gore actually won Florida and then you know the the failure of the court to be involved in anything to do with Russia involved now and and the corruption of the court by Mitch McConnell Title holding off on Brock Obama's nomination Garland for almost a whole year this is unprecedented unconstitutional and frankly I think criminal but the court which is fine with that so the court has become essentially a as Sheldon Whitehouse pointed getting an op-ed and last week's Washington imposed an arm of the GOP and we should say I mean just that White House and a couple of other senators that letter and op Ed that he wrote and then I think they wrote a letter letter as well to the Supreme Court with before five other seventy S it was in the context of of a second amendment cases but it was I mean as far as these things go in a almost a threat right like like this was this is a precursor cursor and I don't want to get ahead of ourselves because I think there is a very very strong movement in your book is part of sort of the the intellectual case that is being developed up now so that lawmakers are compelled to do something in the event that Democrats have the ability to do something you know after the twenty twenty election but let's go back to eighty three to eighteen three rather and talk about how the court changed here and I have to say this is to that one of the things. I think that that is clear. Is that a lot of what we're seeing with. The court today is it's reverting you to wear head is traditionally been right like the court has always been certainly like in the lead up to the to to the civil war and and and really in a dramatic fashion. I think you know during reconstruction and then throughout Jim Crow the court really functions and and we could talk about this sort of the the smaller aspects of the court or the cases that that that that the deal with different aspects of society but from a structural standpoint the court has been has intervened to make sure that it allowed the scales to be tipped in favor of powerful interests you you know what I'm talking about like Jim. Crow whatnot a lot of that vote suppression Congress may have opened the door on some level with you know with the with the with with the limitations and put on the Thirteenth Amendment but the court certainly sort of like busted that door open and said yes the anyway you can come up with disenfranchising black voters or frankly in poor voters go for it and because the the court was always edifying flying power largely and then you know there was a we had you know thirty years I think of the court in the Mid Twentieth Century where that was is reversed for a time but basically the Warren Court cow which is why which is why the John Birch Society with Fred Cokes money had billboards all across America is that Impeach Earl Warren throughout the fifties and sixties fifties throughout the sixties all right well. Let's go back to two hundred zero three so when we talk about the court just explained explained to us what what was the when the court was contemplated and you know I I think there's only so much we can do but it's important for people able to understand the the the point of this. What was the court contemplated as being and then what was it in one thousand nine hundred three that shifted its role and and how did that happen well. Originally the Supreme Court was set up to be basically the court of last resort you had to they have a place where the buck finally stopped so you know if your dog ate my chicken and and one of US sued the other end end you know one of us wins and then the other one appeals it it goes back and forth and back and forth and eventually gets to you know keeps going up the food chain of the courts. It has to stop somewhere in that was the Supreme Court so the Supreme Court was considered the appellate court final appellate court though the quarterfinal appeals in addition to being the court that would adjudicate adjudicate arguments between the states or between the United States and other countries those were the basic three functions of the Supreme Court and as Alexander Hamilton wrote in federalist number eighty one. This is in June seventeen eighty eight he said The authority of the Supreme Court of the United States which is to be a separate independent body the the power construing the laws. Well actually let me jump to the next sends runs in the first place. There is not a cell this Alexander Hamilton in the first place there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect that may be claimed by the courts of every state in other words the Supreme Supreme Court in Hamilton's mind and this is how it was sold to people in the federalist papers and and how it's written in the Constitution the Supreme Court is the final court of Appeals Dell's but doesn't have the power to say this is or is not constitutional does not have the power to strike down laws a process referred to as judicial review or judicial supremacy primacy and in fact the part of the Constitution that specifically authorizes the Supreme Court Article Three Section two reads very simply in all cases cases affecting ambassadors these this is that other area where the court has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors other public ministers in consoles and those in which estate she'll be a party the Supreme Court you'll have original jurisdiction in all the other cases before mentioned the Supreme Court. She'll have appellate jurisdiction. The final appeals court both has to law and fact with such exceptions. The word exceptions is capitalized in under such regulations in that word is capitalized as the Congress shall make so the court was basically the dogs and chickens court and in eighteen hundred three there who says a case that had to do with the judiciary act of seventeen ninety seven that you know without going into a whole lot of detail basically in this case the court struck struck down a law which had been passed by Congress and signed by President Adams President Jefferson or John Washington. Whichever it was in any case it was it was Washington was addition judiciary seventeen year any the court struck this law and Thomas Jefferson went absolutely nuts he he he wrote and I'll just give you a couple of quotes? These are in the book the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and whatnot not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislative and executive also in their spears would make the judiciary to spotting branch. If this Margarita decision be sound than indeed is our Constitution a complete fellow to say which is Latin for a suicide suicide the constitution this hypothesis Zamir thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary outrage but the problem he had was that he had won won the case and so he couldn't appeal his own victory and but there was such an explosion in eighteen three around the Marbury case that John Marshall who was probably the longest serving chief justice in history or one of them. Sir Never again used to dish a review in a inconsequential way in fact the the court just totally stayed away from this all the way up until eighteen fifty six the second time that they used judicial review for consequential the decision and that was when Chief Justice Roger Twenty decided that he would once and for all resolve the slavery issue in the Dread Scott what decision which of course causes the civil war led to the civil war exacerbated the our you know the the the movement toward the civil war so historically the court court did not decide which laws were constitutional which warrant historically the court did not strike down laws and historically the court did not write loss and and with those two exceptions on the I eighty years the existence of this country record never did any of those things they started aggressively doing doing doing that sort of thing in the in the eighteen eighties after the failure reconstruction and you know picked up some steam with the locker court in the nineteen twenties aw slowed down in the in the nineteen thirties and then went nuts again with the Reagan administration and and and we should say I mean I think you know the partly responsible for the failure of reconstruction frankly by by these restrictions on voting but but getting back to article all three section two has there ever been and so so the court asserts itself and takes essentially her rights if you will or duties that are not enumerated or granted to it by the Constitution Constitution. Is there ever a time where Congress says hey wait a second under section two we have the ability ability and I maybe this is what you're talking about in terms of like removing jurisdiction but we have the ability to to to limit the I mean the Supreme Court Shaw the appellate jurisdiction both as to law in fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make theoretically Congress. Should you know could say you don't have the ability to aw to conceptualize the second amendment. You don't have the ability to that. I mean could could congress strike down the civil rights exact yeah absolutely no way to signal the two different things so I mean does does can congress say you don't have have the ability to interpret the Second Amendment. It seems to me there on stronger footing to say you don't have the ability to if we have a a unanimous we have ratified the voting rights act section five. I mean you can't it's one thing for them to say you can't interpret the Constitution Constitution. It's another thing for them to say. You can't overturn our laws particularly if it's not you know off on like an explicit constitutional grounds. Maybe that was their argument with section five that somehow it was like a fourteenth amendment. That's ironic. ONIC was a constitutional argument that they made when they when they stripped the voting rights act and it's always a constitutional arguments. Sometimes they really have the shoehorned in but they recognize that that's the one area where they they have or have acquired or taken authority but Phyllis Schlafly and I used to talk about this a lot on the air she wrote a book called the supremes creams about this and she told me on the air on several occasions that back when Tom Daschle was the head of the Senate that in one of the farm bills he had included included a court stripping provision. I think it had to do with ethanol basically saying that the Supreme Court could not challenge this law now. I looked for that when I was writing in this book and was unable to find it but I I kinda gave up in frustration after going through you know hundreds and hundreds of pages of laws but where it gets real interest is in in the early nineteen eighties. The Reagan Administration wanted to overturn overturn two Supreme Court decisions. The first was the nineteen fifty four Brown versus board of Education decision that outlawed segregation nation and overturned the eighteen ninety eight D- You know separate but equal versus Ferguson decision. I'm John Roberts was was was in the was in the DOJ working on that well. We'll get to that just a second and then secondly they wanted to overturn Roe v Wade nineteen seventy three decision so ed maze hired this young lawyer to come into the Reagan White House and gave him the singular assignment to spend a year figuring out how without a constitutional amendment which is typically how we've overturned Supreme Court decisions without a constitutional amendment could a the an entirely Republican House Senate and White House overturned these decisions and this young lawyer worked on this and he came up with a rather substantial natural documents see. I've got hands here. See how many pages it is. It's like fifty. Oh It's twenty six pages. He wrote this incredible twenty six page draft in which he starts literally with the founders and the and the federalist papers in the Constitution and ends at the at the present moment and says yes under article three section two Congress Congress can easily pass a law which says that the Supreme Court may not review it and Congress could simply pass a law saying that you know segregated created schools are just fine in the United States and that women do not have the power to decide whether or not to have an abortion and that that report the report Kinda got buried. I don't think anybody's ever seen it before. I was amazed when I came across it and it was written by John Roberts himself who was working in the DOJ Jay at that time as you as you point out and he's now the chief justice of the US Supreme Court so you know the Reagan administration never did that any one of the things that Roberts points out in his this report is that doing this will create. It'll be like a nuclear bomb going off at DC politically speaking and you know it'll it'll provoke a constitutional crisis crisis 'cause no doubt the court will say no you can't do that and the in the legislature will say yes. I can and there is no mechanism for resolving the dispute between the court and the other two she branches the court has claimed that they have primacy that they're the they're the they have the final say in all matters and nobody knows how that would shake out but that's the last chapter of my book. It's titled in in Cases Emergency Break Glass right like you know if all else fails we can use John Roberts suggestion to get around the court. Now there's other things that are probably much less problematic like doing what FDR tried to do in nineteen thirty seven which is increase the size of the court which has been done a number of times over over the years both increase and decrease actually when when Andrew Johnson became President a member of the Supreme Court died in the first few months after he became president and he was going to appoint a new member and Congress which hated Johnson. I mean keep in mind. They tried to impeach him came within one vote of doing it. In the Senate Congress Congress got together and they passed a law saying that the number of members of the Supreme Court would go from seven which is where it was then down to six and so Johnson couldn't appoint quite a new Supreme Court justice and that lasted until Johnson left office as soon as he left office and the next president was installed congress came back and added a seventh persons of the supreme in court and that person was appointed by the next president. I'm sorry I don't remember who followed Johnson but whoever it was that's that's what happened and they might have been ulysses. S Grant Yeah and and so let let's talk about this. I mean you know and folks should read this to sort of follow the the court which which you know who largely again but for the Warren Court here a has been on the side of of of corporate corporate power of established power that may have been corporate power monied power. I mean throughout our history. I mean like you know yeah. Well like we say you know the dread. Scott Probably was one of the things that lit match on the civil war into far ars it brought about to head a sort of argument between the north and the South has to slavery flavoring the expansion of slavery and you know Wha- what what the the federal government what rights the federal government had in regards to this and and then we so as people read that let's talk about potential solutions like as you know the the I think you know the largely delete this a book like this creates the sets start to set the table for people to see that we have a structural problem with the Supreme Court. I know you go through this notion and you just talked about you know the the number of justices on the court. Let's talk about term limits and I'm curious from your perspective a what is the best result if you could snap your fingers and then be what is is the best approach to get to that result presuming that you don't have the ability snap your fingers and create this type of before right while the in a way what Franklin Roosevelt was proposing thirty seven was term limits. He didn't suggest that anybody would be removed from the court. Constitution quite clearly says that during times of good behavior which which might be an interesting exception with regard to Justice Beerbaum weenie waiver but in any case during times of good behaviour judges federal judges whether it's the Supreme Court or any other federal judge have lifetime appointments. It's just period so so the question is how do you get somebody off the Supreme Court by retiring them. The question is how do you move them into some other federal judiciary position and and the what Franklin Roosevelt suggested was the all the justices over seventy years old which at that time was five five of them would would become one would would end up with one vote. They would all become justices emeritus collectively they would have one vote and that new justices will be brought into the court to make the missing four votes and so that's one way to do it. They're still on the court. They just have their roles roles change. They've been regulated by Congress and that was presumably entirely constitutional. The way that is being talked about more frequently these days you know by a progressive activists and democratic politicians is saying that after a certain number of years on the court a AH justice moves off the Supreme Court and back into the federal into the federal bench there they would go back so they came out of the ninth circuit and went to the Supreme Court they go back to the ninth circuit typically the DC circuit or the first circuit but you know wh wherever they go back home where they were but there's still a federal judge they still have a job for life and and that he would try to do this in a way that the justices are retired in a staggered fashion so that every president president had you know every four year term of a presidency has an opportunity to appoint one or two Supreme Court justices guaranteed assuming you know and that it only because a larger number than that somebody dies or retires untimely all of those are viable yeah I mean I think Matt Ford in the New Republic had had a scheme game that I've I've heard other schemes that involve that notion of rotating maintaining their lifetime appointments to the judiciary just rotating them through different places in the judiciary between the the appellate level and the Supreme Court itself. What what is it about when we here. FDR's court packing. There's a lot of people who talk about it. As if it was apocalyptic and it was it was does an affront on democracy and that it was very dangerous. You know there's there's there's definitely that notion out there like that's such a radical idea. Where does that come from that comes out of the Republican Party. that is a historic it doesn't comport with the actual historical record although Yeah I. I think I've told you this story back when I first moved to Washington. DC years and years ago or you know started doing our show from DC. This is like you know fifteen years ago or thirteen years ago something like that I I was given a tour of one of the conservative think tanks and I was down in their basement and there was this large Jerome with maybe twenty thirty people sitting at computers and as I was walking around the young people work on computers as I was walking around pretty much aww mad wikipedia up and they were editing wikipedia pages just to the Food lickety-split and it's amazing to me in writing these books as I'm doing research. The first one was on guns. This wants on the Supreme Court that WANNA coming out in the spring is on the war on voting one. I'm wrapping up right now as monopoly how often I find just this naked right wing bias in wikipedia entries whether it has to do with the Great Depression or smoot-hawley or the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt or anything else on this the simple fact is that FDR was pushing through a bunch of progressive reforms in first term nineteen thirty three to nineteen thirty two to January to March. Damn January thirty seven and and the Supreme Court kept knocking them down. He passed a law that said Child Labor was illegal Supreme Court declared unconstitutionally created the American Reconstruction Agency. I forget the name and which included long-term Unemployment Insurance Sheri- and you know the the WPA programs like this that that would have provided long-term jobs to people sprinkler knocked them down and over and over and over again at the Supreme Court was knocking these cases down in thirty seven the Supreme Court was set to hear social security and inch so America was just absolutely on edge. The majority of Americans loved Franklin Roosevelt. He was overwhelmingly popular and he had a strong democratic the House and Senate but the Republicans were hysterical. They were convinced the social security socialism that we had started down the road to communism that we were on our way to become in the Soviet Union that long term unemployment insurance that child labor laws all of these things were were proof that FDR was a communist and so so FDR realizing that social security was on the line and not just social security also the the Wagner Act was going to be decided food in the court term of thirty seven which was the National Labor Relations Act which made it legal to have a labor union and so the stakes were like really really high and so knowing that the court in all probability would strike these things down started doing a sales pitch for expanding the number of members of the court and The blowback from the Republicans was absolute screaming hysteria but when you go back and actual read actually read histories of the time and I quote them rather extensively in my book you find that the majority of the public actually supported FDR and he could he could have done on it the thing that pull the plug on it the reason he didn't do it is that the two of the justices there were there were four justices that were constantly they voted against him on every single case they can usually get a fifth one to come along they referred to themselves as the four horsemen the two of these justices changed their mind signed in one of the critical decisions in thirty seven right in the middle of FDR trying to sell his court packing scheme and it turns out and this was something I found in a in a correspondence the Francis Perkins had their sister turns out that Francis Perkins had a conversation with his wife and it was was probably the thing that turned him and so once that happened the court started agreeing with FDR agreed with him on social security they agreed with him on Labor labor unions and he was left with no political constituency anymore right yeah it was no longer emergency and so he abandoned his court packing scheme he was defeated by the way that you'll if you read it on Wikipedia and some of this revisionist right-wing bs what you hear is that you know the the Republicans successfully fighting back no not the case well. I don't hold out a lot of hope for someone convincing Ginny Thomas to to impact the future court decisions so we may be looking at and so so from a strategic standpoint. What what do you think you're advising President Sanders or President Warren God willing God willing. What do you advise them. Let's just assume that they have the Senate to I mean what from a strategic standpoint. Do you go for expansion of the court or do you say I'm going to threaten expansion the court to get to get term limits or the Congress should vote to to narrow the the the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has uncertain issues. What what do you choose in thirty seven there. The public opinion polling was not as developed as it is now but there were there were among a number of ways to measure public opinion and just twenty years surly when the lochner court was striking things down or taking right wing positions they were still viewed as a credible legitimate institution by thirty seven the majority of Americans view the court the Supreme Court as a political by and the Warren Court kind of pulled that back and and and really the the thirty seven thirty eight going forward court the Supreme Court kind of regained their own credibility over the years but I think we're at that point right again where the majority of people see the court as a political agent and so asks such my advice would be do all of the above proposed legislation that includes court stripping provisions go after the court with proposed term limits proposed expanding the court I you know I would assuming that the and this is a huge assumption as Sam assuming that in the election of two thousand twenty that not only do we get the White House but that we get a substantial majority Jordan on the House and Senate and if that's the case then I would go for not just the cosmetic changes and not just the fight of the day I would go for major permanent long term structural change well like you said God willing Thom Hartmann it is always a pleasure we will put a link link to the hidden history of the Supreme Court and the betrayal of America at majority dot. FM always a pleasure. Thanks so much time. I really appreciate it. Thank you SAM. I orange always enjoyed talking with. You and I really appreciate your having me on welcome back Michael Brooks here. We're going to go to the fun half and take well. Go over bunch of sound. Take some calls. Take some Miami's you know how do Monday I start by saying become a member of the majority report today majority dot. FM Slash become a member. That's how this whole thing's happens. It just coffee dot coop fair trade tea coffee or chocolate. Don't hear much about the chocolate action action does he used to say that my wrongs does say that but this for some of actually listened to it and I've never had any coffee from them. We haven't had chocolate from or chocolates. Are we drink the coffee. Their coffee fuels the operation no yeah that's what I'm saying. I haven't had the chocolate. I wonder what that will investigate instigate the chocolate. Let's do it. I like it folks. Go check out the Michael Brook. Show today tomorrow. WPRO big show and accoceberry joins us to get into the details of why we need single payer healthcare housing for all. She makes a strong case for impeaching the car. I'm giving you a guide of all the political factions inside Palestine and Israel as well as this incredible audible speech at the UN General Assembly by the Prime Minister Barbados whole bunch of other stuff this Sunday an a lease elicit history of counter hegemony and the new partnership between the State of California and China on Climate Change Patriots Dot com slash. GS Michael Brooks show on Youtube and grab your tickets today. November twenty third very excited live show in Philadelphia a crystal ball Emma Viglen artesia ball throb and in two other quick things. I'll just let everybody know I was on with crystal ball this morning on the hill you can check that out and just had a piece co published with Ben Burgess and the Jacob Robin on how Bernie could answer the disingenuous question on Venezuela by actually giving a really broad answer on US interventionism in Latin in America that connects his really brave and smart and correct stances that he's taking on foreign policy with a more more holistic answer as to why like why can't then as well. It'd be like Sweden I wonder go check the peace out all right Jamie. What's cooking this week on the Anti Fatah we speak with Najah Gyo an organizer from no new jails? NYC about what prison abolition ISM means and in theory and in practice and the current ongoing campaign to close rikers and not replace it with anything instead reinvesting the money in communities unity's and going through decarbonisation measures and I'm really excited about that. Also we have a live show coming up October tober twelfth at Littlefield here in Brooklyn and Littlefield is in just even closer to the industrially ravaged average go on is canal. God Heartland America. Yes yes yes. That's a go on his Brooklyn. USA and we are doing this show with our goth socialist sister show pod. Damn America that's Jake four as Alex attack and Anders Lee. We also have some really amazing. I'm good ask guests. Including Fertile Texas Matt Krishnan Simone Norman Leslie Lead the third and Comrade Barbie so and the last one by the way is communist drag. Queen says not Brennan's all three go. I mean we'll see yeah. You never know you have to come to do the show to see if you recognize. Comrade Barbie very dope so yeah. Get your take me. I'm comrade bobby. It's Sam A for literary hangover. I released on the weekend. The first time I've done a book solo did a hub hub a mock a tale of early times by Lydia Maria Child who who cornell west. Yes has said we must read Cornell. West says we must uplift or she was early feminist abolitionist and I mean she's great. She also wrote like the Frugal Housewife guide to Larry some some book like that which was a sort of more every person that basically how you deal with poverty and eh getting by in not just people thought it was tasteless because it's like you shouldn't talk about that sort of thing so yeah like women shouldn't have to like you shouldn't acknowledge that you deal with poverty okay so she was very very good. a role model. I talk about her first book which he wrote when she was like twenty two and it was basically a response to gyms Finnmark Cooper's the the pioneers and maybe a little bit more interesting but people can be the judge of that so check that out habemus assassinating all right folks we will see you on on the funhouse left us that Jamie Amy and I may have a disagreement yeah. You can't just say whatever you want about people. Just 'cause you bitch. I have an absolute right mark them on Youtube up there buggy wedding. He's the boss I am. Not your employer negatively. I'm sorry I didn't mean to upset. you nervous a little bit upset. You riled up yeah. Maybe you should rethink you think you're defensive at your walking idiots which is going to get rid of you all right but do do do. Do you want to smoke his joint right yes. Do you feel like you are a dinosaur shit exactly. I'm happy now to win win. It's a win win win. listen to me two three four five times eight four seven. Oh six five zero one four five seven six twenty seven one half five eight three point nine billion also. Don't you see why she got a real job instead of doing limbaugh. Everybody's taking their dumb juice. I Sami Dance Dance at my I coast with a woman and hoping that more moves to my repertoire all I have to dip into squirrel. Yes this is a perfect moment. No wait what you make under a million dollars a year gum. You're not paying us. Fuck you. You fucking you belong in jail. Thank you for your part. Quick break or take a moment to talk to some of the Libertarians out there they would ever vehicle you want to drive to the library. You're talking about his elastic. I'm feeling more chill already. Donald Trump can kiss all aces' Andy as it no death to America. Wow Wow that's unbelievable. The guys who I gotta get element to flush this out a little bit I mean look. It's a free speech issue. If you don't like me shut up. Thank thank you for calling in to the majority report. Damn will be with you shortly.

US Supreme Court US president Supreme Court Warren Court Congress Thom Hartmann Sam Supreme Supreme Court Robert De Niro America Thom Hartmann Tonys Senate Jerry Brown President Sanders Deniro Sisley White House FDR California