Supreme Court Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Jul 6, 2012 at 11:58 am
The only way that the president can get a dictatorial control on the country is to get control of the Supreme Court. He can then tell them what he wants and what he doesn't want. He can have them declare any law that he doesn't like unconstitutional, because it's purely a matter of opinion, judicial opinion. They are absolutely ineffective because they cannot pass one single law against him. The Supreme Court will throw it out as unconstitutional. He can declare any law unconstitutional he doesn't like, so that they can't do anything unless they pass laws to suit him. They can override his veto with a two-thirds majority, but if they do, he can have it thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and he did it for the good of the poor man. They were good men who were trying to do the country good and they weren't trying to be a dictator. He was a socialist, definitely a socialist. He did more to help the poor than almost any ruler of America in their history. The country was desperate, in the midst of a depression. Then they got into a war. But the way he did it was to get control of the Supreme Court. He had a five-man liberal majority on the Supreme Court.
Given the advancing age of several of the justices, an Obama second term may see the appointment of up to three new Supreme Court members. I have the feeling that it was sort of going to his head. A ruler and leader gets a little puffed up in his head and begins to think he's really a god. I pray not!