Should Presidents Transform US Supreme Court? – Part II

I exchanged emails with a liberal friend where I stated “I think Presidents who win elections should be able to transform the court. Like Franklin D. Roosevelt going from 9 old men to appointing 8 Associate Justices to the Supreme Court”.

This liberal replied “Very arbitrary Gene when you consider just under half the population DID NOT vote for this current President. By the way Roosevelt won by a landslide - it's a poor comparison.”

In 2004, George W. Bush was elected with 51% of the vote.
How does this compare with prior Presidents?

Interesting Franklin D. Roosevelt was last reelected in 1944 with 53.4% of the votes cast.

1948 Harry S. Truman Democrat 49.5% who then appointed to the Supreme Court:
- Harold Burton - 1945
- Fred M. Vinson - Chief Justice - 1946
- Tom Clark - 1949
- Sherman Minton - 1949

1960 John F. Kennedy Democrat 49.72% appointed:
- Byron White - 1962
- Arthur Goldberg – 1962

1968 Richard Nixon Republican 43% and appointed all in his first term:
- Warren E. Burger - Chief Justice - 1969
- Harry Blackmun - 1970
- Lewis Powell, Jr. - 1972
- William Rehnquist – 1972

1976 Jimmy Carter 50.1% who had no vacancies

1992 Bill Clinton 43% and appointed in his first term
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 1993
- Stephen Breyer – 1994

Eisenhower, Johnson, Reagan, George H.W. Bush all won by significant majorities, however, Clinton was reelected in 1996 with only 49.24% of the votes cast.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

American democracy has long recognized the winner of elections as the President deserving respect and the use of all Constitutional executive powers. Winning by a landslide does not increase the President’s Constitutional authority.