The Switch in Time That Saved Nine | West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

[@iammrbeat]

Hey guess what? I wrote a book about the Supreme Court: amzn.to/3PopztY Which Supreme Court case should I cover for this series next?

[@A_Grand_Tough_Guy_in_Miami]

Can you look at the overturning of Roe v wade?

[@lpourmirza]

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, and Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins are all good choices for the next video in my opinion!

[@KuominMessenger129]

Island Trees School District v. Pico should be covered as I think it is more relevant than before in our landscape

[@alonkatz4633]

Here's my suggestion: 💦✌🧑‍🎨

[@libertas_Jack]

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. Would be lovely cause as an Australian that is very interested in that case, in particular 😉 awesome videos as always 😀

[@johnchessant3012]

for those who don't know, the phrase "the switch in time that saved nine" is a clever play on "a stitch in time saves nine", an idiom saying that preventive maintenance is more efficient than fixing things after they become an issue. I was the (probably) rare kid who learned about this case and thus heard the pun first, and was terribly confused.

[@DiamondKingStudios]

Nah I also heard of the case before the idiom.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

Tbh this is one of my favorite series on this channel. Learning about SCOTUS cases has taught me a lot about constitutional law and I find it fascinating. Thank you Mr. Beat!

[@iammrbeat]

I've learned a lot making them as well. :) Thanks for the kind comment!

[@donkey7921]

Yeah, I really wish there was an equivalent for other countries like Canada.

[@BSI_Inc.]

Same

[@NATOtheGeek]

I love Supreme Court Briefs!

[@iammrbeat]

Woah thank you!

[@havehope646]

Same bruh

[@kwisin1337]

Thank you Mr. Beat

[@milesjolly6173]

Me too. Please keep it up Mr. Beat, we love your videos!

[@zach7193]

Well, this was truly something. The establishment of the minimum wage.

[@iammrbeat]

Something we often take for granted!

[@jp783]

@@iammrbeat and it was increased by .05 the following year, and within 12 years it tripled. Sometimes you have to look past just the passage of a law and look at why he was able to get it passed, and then take a look at the effect it has down the line. There's a bit missing here - your information is accurate, but a deeper dive into context (e.g. the public actually became a bit trepidatious when FDR started talking about adding 5-6 judges onto the court in his speeches. Also, his attempts to purge members of congress that worked so well after his first term, failed after his 2nd) would be a good thing. (Forget about the fact that there had been decades of bloody, murderous labor vs capital/employer conflict that led up to the NLRB, FLSA, and The Wagner Act, which after WWII the business class took great pains in dismantling as much as they possibly could). Additionally, the thing I never hear from anyone anymore re: FDR, and his magnum opus, which exists in plain sight, but no one sees any longer, is the very fact that HE. SAVED. CAPITALISM!!! HE..SAVED....HIS....OWN....CLASS!!! from completely losing an economic system that advantaged them (the ruling class), which if judged by the allocation, organization, and distribution of goods, resources, and services, was nothing less than a total catastrophic failure by the time he became President in 1933. The Communists (our own Communists) inside the US were armed and ready for overthrow. FDR brought their missive to the wealth barons of the day to get them to agree to a 63% business tax rate at the top of the revenue scale. That was what FDR came into then. I wonder, at times, if saving our market economy was ultimately a good thing, but it doesn't exist anymore without him and his improvisations (make no mistake, that's what they were) that comprised what became the New Deal. So, a bit of a more sincere treatment is justified, I believe, when you educate folks about the mendacious, horny paraplegic.

[@jeffslote9671]

Unfortunately we still have a minimum wage in the United States.

[@UnitedStatesExplained]

@@jeffslote9671 amen

[@wilsilhavy2030]

@@jeffslote9671 do you just want people to be poor?

[@IonasalSdorica]

Ah, the switch that resulted in the Four Horsemen in dissent on a regular basis after this. The Three Musketeers would've been certainly pleased.

[@iammrbeat]

Three beat Four :)

[@DiamondKingStudios]

I’m imagining McReynolds giving Roberts the same cold shoulder he gave Brandeis and Cardozo. Also, how long after this until Cardozo died? He had a pretty short career in the Court.

[@milesjolly6173]

@@DiamondKingStudios I think Cardozo died in July 1938 at the age of 68. He was on the court just over six years from March 1932- 1938.

[@Anita.Cox.]

Thank you, i cannot find a video about this case thats not super boring.

[@iammrbeat]

haha that is my prerogative...to make SCOTUS unboringed

[@jacklazzaro9820]

So in other words, this was a supreme court case that mattered not necessarily because of the plaintiff and defendant, but to protect the integrity of the supreme court?

[@iammrbeat]

Both, but more so the latter. We learn about this case in APUSH primarily, for example, because it shows how the Supreme Court is indeed often shifting with the political winds.

[@DiamondKingStudios]

@@iammrbeatI never heard this case brought up in my APUSH class but studied it in my spare time. Guess it’s different here in Catholic school Georgia, or my teacher just had slightly different priorities for what to cover (probably more likely the latter when it comes to the particular school I went to).

[@Aboz]

And today the Federal minimim wage is $7.25, which is $0.33 in 1938 dollars.

[@iammrbeat]

True facts

[@jeffslote9671]

It’s still to high. We shouldn’t have one

[@loganhaynes9176]

@@jeffslote9671why

[@loganhaynes9176]

@@jeffslote9671why

[@spaceman081447]

​@@jeffslote9671 Why do you say that there should not be a minimum wage? Would you prefer no wage at all (i.e. slavery)?

[@MindlessMadness12]

I finished your book on Supreme Court cases last week, I throughly enjoyed it! Thank you!

[@zacharyclarke8978]

I was half-expecting a Lochner idea leaning result, so learning that this was specifically the case that represented a shift away from that was neat! An idea that is interesting is that to preserve the insulation of the court from political pressures, Justice Roberts chose to be influenced by those very same politics in a different way (almost certainly for the better, though, I can't imagine politics being any better with 99+ justices in the Supreme Court in a worst case scenario where the precedent runs wild).

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah it has been almost predictable how Roberts has gone from being a right-leaning justice to moderate-leaning justice over the past 20 years.

[@danielbarrero2815]

Great channel! Thanks for your vids.

[@hashbrowns88]

Always great to see a landmark case covered concisely. I wonder, if you have not done so in your other vids, if you might cover the dissents as well. At least those which are important and may have been used as persuasive authority in future opinions.

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah, I typically only cover dissents if it's a 5-4 decision. The goal is for these to be concise enough to fit into a high school lesson. :)

[@3bostonboys]

What’s interesting is that the minimum wage was just $5.50 in todays money in those days yet fewer lived paycheck to paycheck just 10 years later than with $7.25+ minimum wages today.

[@ethanbarnes7163]

Yeah because we were fighting a war and going to war is good for the economy.

[@SamAronow]

@@ethanbarnes7163only as long as you win, the war isn’t fought in your country, and your allies can rebuild.

[@michaelbatson1879]

A case that has intrigued me is the 1995 case of Arizona v Evans. It deals with a quashed warrant and the Exclusionary rule.

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks for the suggestion!

[@lifeform106]

Thanks for posting my favorite series on your channel:) I learned so much about the Supreme Court from here and I like how objective it is 👍

[@iammrbeat]

I appreciate the support!

[@alman666]

Thank you so much, Mr. Beat! This has been a long time coming and I am so thrilled to see you tackle this historic case in the Briefs. I can't wait for the next episode!

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks :)

[@Edwicker]

I'm not familiar enough with Supreme Court cases to recommend one, but I am always happy to see another episode in this series. This was a nice helping of brain food.

[@Link2525252525]

Wickard v filburn would be another interesting new deal case to cover

[@needtasteingames]

Keep it up Mr Beat! I love these videos!

[@iammrbeat]

Well thank you!

[@JLinker613]

There are big problems here. 1. The Supreme Court upheld most regulations on business in the Lochner era. At most 20% of cases that made it to the Supreme Court saw the regulation struck down. 2. Owen Roberts already changed his views in a 1934 case called Nebbia v. New York. He had been ready to overturn Adkins in a 1935 case called Tipaldo, but the challenger to a similar law didn't ask for the Court to overturn Adkins. In West Coast Hotel the challenger requested it, and so it was done.

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

What do you mean asking for an overturn?

[@needtasteingames]

Court definitely made the right decision here

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah...it holds up pretty well

[@A_Grand_Tough_Guy_in_Miami]

Yooo another Mr. Beat video this gonna be 🔥 Edit: It was :D

[@iammrbeat]

I hope so 🔥

[@tahm22]

Supreme Court Briefs is my favorite series on youtube.

[@anthonyminimum]

1932 was when my great grandmother was born, she sadly passed away two years ago :(

[@iammrbeat]

That's also when my grandpa was born!

[@thatwolfdude018]

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker! PLEASE!

[@iammrbeat]

Right on

[@Andis01]

I love your videos! I took Con Law in college and it's always been something really interesting to me, so it's been fun going through your videos and relearning cases or learning about new cases. Keep it up.

[@ItMeRobin]

I'd be interested in watching a video on West v. Barnes, aka the very first supreme court case

[@grahamradcliffe]

I second this

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

Is it even interesting?

[@grahamradcliffe]

@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions Maybe, but it would be, in my opinion, a very good addition given it is the first ever supreme court case.

[@hakeemfullerton8645]

4:44-4:51....Sure glad that's a thing of the past 😂

[@iammrbeat]

oh snapp

[@salvadorsanchez2423]

I think that McCleskey vs Kemp is an interesting case to look at

[@aidanringel8924]

Wow, I’m from the Wenatchee area and had no idea how influential that hotel is!

[@89Awww]

Twelve, unlike nine, is an even number. I wonder if FDR realized this so he could become the tie-breaker. 🤔

[@iammrbeat]

He wanted a maximum of six additional justices, so it could have been 15

[@89Awww]

@@iammrbeat Interesting, trying to pack the Supreme Court was a pyrrhic effort. He didn't even have to add more seats, he got his way by simply being president for more than twelve years.

[@pointlessgarbage8587]

These videos are some of your best! Short, concise, unbiased, and digestible

[@joshhawkins2765]

You should do a video on the sister case to this one NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel. It basically gave us the powerful federal government we have today

[@alexanderwinn2896]

Good video. Glad you're going into the Lochner era pre New Deal cases because some of them are fascinating. Some suggestions for future SCOUS briefs are Pierce v Society of Sisters which is right to send children to private school. Could partner it with Meyer v Nebraska which is about a right to learn in foreign languages. Other cases that may be of interest from that era involve Kansas economic regulation and some Kansas history. So Coppage v Kansas which was a case about a ban on yellow dog contracts, Wolff Packing Co v Court of Industrial Relations struck down compulsory bargaining laws. Dorchy v Kansas was a companion to Wolff.

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks for the kind words and suggestions!

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

Meyer v. Nebraska is more about parental rights to rear children as one desires vs. how the state wants to educate its residents. Yes, it began with Nebraska making English solely official at all levels of government and how that affected the teaching of other languages outside government-run school facilities, but the justices explained that the state really just took away the choice of a parent to educate their child as they wished. However, it's a pretty interesting case as it was one of the first times the 14th Amendment was ever used to safeguard civil liberties.

[@danonino1497]

Favorite series from Mr. Beat! Keep these up sir!

[@henrym9443]

Morrison v. Olson would be a good one to cover in the future!

[@bigk8210]

It also had to do with the fact that the original legislation in FDR's first 100 days was written quickly, haphazardly. Well meaning but poorly written. It was done at a break neck pace to tackle the Great Depression. It took a couple of years to make it's way to the SCOTUS where it was overturned. Congress then created legislation to replace it which was more carefully written to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny with the SCOTUS decisions taken into account. A couple more years it made its way back... The new legislation wasn't enough to change the minds of the Four Horseman but it did sway Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Hughes. And remember this court in twice overturned the convictions of the Scottsboro Boys (Powell v. Alabama and Norris v. Alabama). In Brown v. Mississippi they unanimously overturned murder convictions where the dirt-poor black defendants had ther confessions tortured out of them. And in Near v. Minnesota they ruled against prior restraint by the government.

[@iammrbeat]

Very good points. Thanks for adding this much-needed context and nuance.

[@hyun-shik7327]

$5.50 an hour would be a terrible minimum wage now, but it was a huge upgrade over nothing.

[@jebkermen6087]

that was in now money tho.

[@tylerhackner9731]

I love these!

[@iammrbeat]

Glad you dig 'em. :)

[@luisfilipe2023]

My favorite historical series is back 🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@DiamondKingStudios]

Roosevelt, hearing about the case: [crumples up proposal to add more justices to the Court] “Guess nine’s all right for now.” [tosses wad of paper into the fireplace] “They were getting pretty close. I gotta come up with a real swell nominee for when the next one croaks… *How about that Douglas guy?* He’s only, what, 37 or so right now, but I think he’ll do well.”

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

Reminds me of an Avengers post-credit scene. 🤭

[@LungButter753]

Kudos on pronouncing Wenatchee correctly! When I was in the army, I had mentioned this case to a platoon mate. Long story short, the gist was that I was proud to be from a town that had influenced law in this way. I still remember his reply. "Oh, I'm from Pennsylvania." Hmm, well point taken. :)

[@LeftoverPat]

Have you ever considered doing Martin v. Boise? I was only just learning about how impactful it was to homelessness on the West Coast.

[@jwil4286]

tbh, that court packing threat should amount to judge intimidation. it's illegal to threaten a judge/justice/juror/witness in a trial/case, but presidents and congressmen threatening to add more justices in order to influence the court isn't a violation of this law?

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

No, Congress has total power to add or remove Justices at will. Besides, it was worded in such a way that it shouldn't have been seen as a threat, but nobody was stupid enough to not see it that way. FDR asked Congress to add a Justice for every already existing Justice that was over 70 up to I think 15 total Justices (so, 6 extra). Remember, there are checks and balances between branches. This is one of them. Although, you could take up this argument with the Constitution which leaves the Supreme Court and the entire judicial branch and how it looks like to Congress! The only mentioned Justice is the Chief Justice and their only job is to substitute the president of the Senate whenever impeaching a president happens, that's it.

[@jwil4286]

@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions but that the idea that someone should condition such a bill based on a ruling is where the threat comes in. it was obvious that FDR was only asking to add justices so he could force his way through the courts (who had been striking down the New Deal piece by piece until then). if he truly thought it was just a good idea, why didn't he say so before they struck down his legislation (or even before being sworn in or elected)?

[@tomhalla426]

The minor little problem for liberals is that Lochner was based on the same rationale as Roe v Wade, Substantive Due Process. A rather selective view of when that principle is valid.

[@iammrbeat]

Didn't one of the justices bring this up?

[@tomhalla426]

@@iammrbeat It may have been in the majority opinion in Dobbs. I only read that once, and it sorta merges with commentary on the case.

[@insydian]

Why is this age restricted? KZbin get your crap together

[@jimfromdiscord.8904]

Hard to believe that if West Coast Hotel Co. simply paid the difference, this case wouldn't have ended up on the Supreme Court, and thus, the Four Horsemen (ft. Roberts) could've retained their power a bit longer until the next New Deal-related case came along, or FDR went through with his court plan

[@braazypf]

sorry that youtube is fucking over your content with age restrictions and what not. i like your stuff and i wanna help u.

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you so much!

[@SiVlog1989]

Washington State, unlike most states, as far as I'm aware, ties it's minimum wage with the rate of inflation, so that it rises with inflation, rather than remaining static for decades by politicians, so businesses can plan accordingly around it. In other words, the value of the Federal Minimum Wage over time gets dragged down by inflation and the fact that it takes an Act of Congress to raise the Federal Minimum Wage means that it seems to be like many aspects of the US Congress, deadlocked (Democrats want to increase it, Republicans want it to stay the same)* *: this is probably oversimplified, but based on a video I've seen about the Federal Minimum Wage by Vox, that's what I've heard, I don't want to pretend to be an economic expert

[@iammrbeat]

Dang, your knowledge on American law is impressive

[@tomhalla426]

However, if one goes off economics, not politics, the minimum wage is a detriment.

[@drago2689]

@@tomhalla426 based on what economics? Basically every country in the world has a minimum wage. Most set one with the central government, others have state/provincial/canton governments establish their own. The few countries that don't have an official government min wage have highly regulated/pro labor rights economies with overwhelmingly unionized workforces that collectively negotiate min wages for specific industries. For example, Norway has no minimum wage but the construction unions have created an industry wide minimum wage around 215 NOK or $20 USD, same with restaurant unions that set theirs at 190 NOK or $18 USD. I'd imagine if minimum wages were so detrimental to the economy that virtually every country on the planet wouldn't allow them to exist regardless of the mechanism they are achieved.

[@tomhalla426]

@@drago2689 Going off the Austrian school. Socialism is a common vice. The actual “minimum wage” is not being hired in the first place.

[@drago2689]

@@tomhalla426 so every country in the world is socialist because they have a minimum wage? Anything of use that Austrian school of thought provided has already been incorporated into modern economies and exhausted. Ever since Hayek's contributions on price as information, Austrian thought has been completely irrelevant to contributing towards contemporary economic best practices. In other words the Austrian school of thought is by no means a credible framework to critique modern practices given how dated many of their concepts are now. In fact I believe Hayek himself argued for a minimum income.

[@bonkdicootrevised6774]

Error: Description said episode 78 than episode 79

[@iammrbeat]

This was episode 78

[@bonkdicootrevised6774]

​​@@iammrbeatyour supreme court briefs playlist had 79 videos(Episodes) episode 76 is McGirt V. Oklahoma

[@lindaper8470]

Did you know that in the famous painting of John Quincy Adams there’s a drawing of George Washington

[@billytompkins6633]

Not now babe. Mr Beat has dropped a supreme court briefs video

[@iammrbeat]

:)

[@dersitzpinkler2027]

I watch every Supreme Court briefs and am just relieved I haven’t had to see Clarence Thomas in his undies yet

[@dmdoppler115]

Huh, i literally just subed and he just posted interesting, love the content btw.

[@iammrbeat]

Well thanks for subscribing!

[@rippyepipbipt784]

Hi Mr. Beat. In a future episode could you please possibly cover Milliken v. Bradley? Thank you!

[@Mreasyplay2]

Yay, another Supreme Court Briefs.

[@themumblebrapper]

so glad you're close to a million subs, only 37k away!!!!

[@dictatorofcanada4238]

Is the USA the only country in the world where its constitution constrained (or was interpreted to constrain) the government’s ability to pass laws protecting workers?

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

It was so bad that at one point the feds couldn't regulate child labor, which is why there's a proposed amendment about it, which is still pending before the states! Yep, the Supreme Court said only states could regulate the labor of those below 18 for some reason. That proposal led to a court case that decided Congress was the one to decide how long a proposed amendment is viable or whether or not it even has a deadline. Hope he covers that case soon.

[@Mr_Bunk]

I'd like to learn more about domestic politics in the USA during WWII. If further videos on this are out of the question, can anyone give me some pointers?

[@devingiles6597]

Hi, Mr. Beat! In a future episode of Supreme Court Briefs, you should definitely cover Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. This case involves Universal Pictures alleged that Nintendo's hit 1981 arcade classic Donkey Kong was a trademark infringement of King Kong, which the plot and characters of which Universal claim their own. Please do a video on this Supreme Court case!

[@millenniumvintage9726]

NEW MR. BEAT

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

Great decision, but the federal minimum wage is still too low today. We ought to raise it from $7.25 to $20 an hour.

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

They couldn't even increase it to 15 last decade, 20 has even less chances of passing in this Congress! But, something must change!

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions You can thank the Republican party for that. They oppose all change.

[@denverrsouthers5531]

I think people were ok with only making the modern equivalent of $5.50 whereas we feel like $15 isn't enough because there was simply less stuff to spend money on. Housing prices were probably less exploitative too.

[@THE_REAL_POLITIK]

Yeah so the Federal minimum wage remains extremely low only 7.25 per/hour.

[@henrymancini7853]

What great timing, my college class will be going over this case on Monday!

[@iammrbeat]

Heck yeah! That works out. :)

[@HapliodHandler]

Asking for South Dakota v. Dole

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

Hold up! They denied her the minimum wage, because a federal case had found a *federal* minimum wage to be unconditional, how did that mean a *state* minimum was also unconstitutional?! That's a dumb decision on their part!

[@kmarks97236]

Love this series. One small thing, it was 30 cents per hour

[@iammrbeat]

Actually, for a brief time before that it was indeed 25 cents an hour (assuming you're talking about the federal minimum wage law passed)

[@Ralphbros24]

I’ve grown to appreciate Supreme Court briefs

[@iammrbeat]

Well I appreciate YOU :)

[@Ralphbros24]

@@iammrbeat aw thank you Mr Beat! You just made my day! You are the best KZbin geography teacher I could ever ask for!

[@DavidEssig342]

Hey Mr. Beat, you should cover Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization in the next episode

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks for the suggestion!

[@sydhenderson6753]

My understanding is that Owen Roberts was something of a swing vote before this. My theory is that he couldn't stand to vote on the same side as James Clark McReynolds, on the theory that McReynolds was always wrong.

[@makiahtomlinsonedits7242]

Hey mr beat Can Make a Of The President's Brothers and Sisters

[@Poetheweenie54]

Hey Mr beat you should do a compare video between El Paso TX and Juarez Mexico

[@feraligatorade99]

>threatens to pack the court >SCOTUS suddenly finds the new deal to be constitutional What a great President

[@evilpisces]

I wonder how the Justices thought the people of today would judge them, I am assuming we are overwhelmingly in favor of minimum wage.

[@Compucles]

I'm not a fan of the so-called "freedom" to enter contracts no matter how bad they are or how naive people can be about them, particularly the less educated, and I especially hate how it can be interpreted as a way to block labor regulations. Sometimes you have to protect people from their own ignorance or stupidity.

[@iammrbeat]

Fair point

[@fanfywriter8727]

And from unfortunate circumstances. Someone 'voluntarily' entering a contract under threat of starvation is not free contracting. It's just taking advantage of people to leverage away their freedom.

[@Compucles]

It's also why we have seat belt laws.

[@Graypalks]

​@@fanfywriter8727It still is because starvation is just an unwanted circumstance.

[@Pizzaempire2009]

Please do Us V authlex (2021 case of the United States Supreme Court)

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks for suggesting it!

[@sunglassdubsteps5268]

When is the next compared videos? Please do Japan and Taiwan compared please.

[@devingiles6597]

Mr. Beat, I have some suggestions for Supreme Court cases you should cover in future videos. FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2009)

[@nittyclips]

Not me pausing the video to go calculate how much $14.50 a week would be worth today just for me to unpause the video and you tell me literally 2 seconds later 🤣

[@Hoosier_man01]

Hey @iammrbeat could you possibly do a video on Justice Sherman Minton. I have hometown bias though as we’re both from New Albany, Indiana,

[@ExecutiveCounsel]

Standard Oil Co. v. US US v. EC Knight Co. Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. Northern Securities v. US. Hammer v. Dagenhart/US v. Darby Mcclesky v. Kemp

[@caseclosed9342]

Court-packing, where I have I heard that recently? 🤔

[@memegraveyard2419]

Hi Mr. Beat!

[@iammrbeat]

Hi!

[@sprainposting]

im using your videos to help me with some quizbowl/nerd club questions about SCOTUS rulings in school and they've been extremely helpful! i've been a big fan of your channel for a long time, can you consider doing some more cases that were instrumental in setting up the courts power in the early years? thanks for the great content :)

[@mrlarry271]

That whole court packing ordeal really shredded FDR's second term and it didn't matter anyway because Supreme Court vacancies started opening up later that year. A big blunder on his part. Threw the Republican Party a badly needed life jacket.

[@LiteralSloth]

Love the series! 🎉

[@Maxwell4872-j8e]

Pls do Lawrence v Texes for the next case

[@iammrbeat]

I really need to make this episode considering I did write about it in the book.

[@mwolsen96]

When is Mr. Beat gonna guest star on 5-4?

[@mathieuleader8601]

I would like to see a video on if packing the court through FDR's proposed law would be good or bad?

[@Joe_Monkey_Rogan]

FDR court packing was one of the closest times a dictatorship could have taken hold

[@hakeemfullerton8645]

An idea for a future Supreme Court Brief: The US vs Paramount Pictures

[@iammrbeat]

That's a good one to learn about!

[@USMarine75]

She should have sued to find her other arm.

[@Sleepingfishie]

We NEED. Chevron video asap

[@tristangossman8910]

Have you done the one yet where they decided if the tomato is a fruit or a vegetable?

[@SageArdor]

I mentioned this in a comment once before, but I would still love for you to cover Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). Long and short of it, it was a unanimous decision that, under Title VII, sexual harassment cases could still be taken to court in the event that the plaintiff and defendant are of the same sex.

[@iammrbeat]

Right on, I must have missed this the first time you suggested it!

[@DFaustJr]

McCleskey v. Kemp

[@iammrbeat]

Right on

[@vrextar]

TBH, I'm surprised no other employer has tried to fight it recently given how anti-worker the government is.

[@migtig5544]

Hi Mr. Beat! I still strongly dislike Edmonton and Calgary

[@iammrbeat]

lol ok

[@MegrelMamba]

This whole interaction just 💀