Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, [1] frequently called the "court-packing plan", [2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional. [3]
The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-511131-6. McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. ISBN 978-0-8232-2154-7. Philips, Michael J. (2001).
The Gold Clause Cases were a series of actions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court narrowly upheld the Roosevelt administration's adjustment of the gold standard in response to the Great Depression.
“Packing the court would shift the court’s politics to harmonize more closely with the majority of Americans. The court’s constitutional decisions are always partly political. That is, the ...
The court packing fight cost Roosevelt the support of some liberals, such as Montana senator Burton K. Wheeler. [167] and commentator Walter Lippmann. [168] In early 1937, while the debate over the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 continued, the Supreme Court handed down its holding in the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. In a 5 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The Court is subject to some checks, if it clashes intensely with the other branches of government: proposals for term limits or court expansion can get its attention and encourage it to think ...
Cardozo felt that in this case, Schechter was simply too small a player to be relevant to interstate commerce. This traditional reading of the Commerce Clause was later disavowed by the Court, after the "court-packing plan" by President Roosevelt, began to read congressional power more expansively in this area, in cases such as NLRB v.