|
Ok, that seems relatively moderate way of saying the Supreme Court was wrong and to advocate for a legislative solution (though I know the majority opinion explicitly disagrees that foreign involvement is an outcome of the decision). Probably would have been best to use another word than "wrong" at the end as it isn't clear where that is referring to corporate involvement being wrong (which would not necessarily say the court incorrectly decided) or whether the decision itself was unreasonably decided (though he doubtless thinks so).
He could have lashed out at activist judges. He could have gone the FDR route and asked that Congress increase the size of the bench so that he could stack it with right thinking judges to reverse things. (Though he never called out one decision Bush wasn't shy about criticizing aspects of the judiciary in his SOTUs; even outright calling out certain state Supreme Courts)
I do think that expanding the court to, say, 15 judges would be a good thing but it would never be politically viable in a time when the court is closely split ideologically and it would not be viewed as politically necessary when it isn't.
|