Free Soviets
05-11-2008, 23:22
something TCT said in another thread got me thinking:
Unfortunately, without changes in the make-up of SCOTUS, we are unlikely to get a decision protecting same-sex marriage -- even though that is the logical extension of existing caselaw.
alright, it's sort of a given that the 4 wingnut members of the court are also the least likely to retire anytime in the foreseeable future. so while obama gets to put good people on when a few people leave, it won't be enough to fundamentally alter the dynamics - we'll still be stuck with the whims of kennedy determining the outcomes on issues that make the wingnuts freak out. this is especially important in the light of the 2000 election - ancient history, i know, but now that we finally have some semi-reasonable people in charge of making decisions, we can start fixing all the shit that has accumulated. to quote brad delong (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/the-supreme-cou.html):
Seven Republicans, only three of them attached to reality, and two Democrats.
This degree of Republican partisan entrenchment in the court is--in a word--bizarre. It is not a good thing.
Moreover, this Supreme Court forfeited any claim to be due deference from the other branches of the government when it prostituted its office to install George W. Bush as president eight years ago. It then established a new constitutional principle: that if an election is close and if one party has appointed an overwhelming majority of justices of the Supreme Court, that majority gets to decide the election.
Republican hack Alex Castellanos said last night, on CNN: "There is no way for us Republicans to win this election unless we had a 9-0 majority on the Supreme Court." That was a joke. But it really wasn't a joke at all, was it?
Think about that.
Is this a constitutional principle that we want established? No. But it will be established unless we declare that this is not, in fact, a constitutional moment we want to embrace.
How can we push back? How can we keep this from becoming an established constitutional principle? All five of the Bush v. Gore justices should have been impeached, but the Republicans--for partisan political reasons--would not step up to the plate. However, now that George W. Bush is on the way out perhaps Republican senators can be persuaded that they do not want "he who appointed the judges wins" to be part of our constitution.
so what, if anything, should be done? is the court fine as is? should the justices who whored themselves out as part of the majority in bush v. gore be impeached or otherwise forced from power? should obama and his nearly unstoppable mandate boost the number of justices, either temporarily or permanently?
Unfortunately, without changes in the make-up of SCOTUS, we are unlikely to get a decision protecting same-sex marriage -- even though that is the logical extension of existing caselaw.
alright, it's sort of a given that the 4 wingnut members of the court are also the least likely to retire anytime in the foreseeable future. so while obama gets to put good people on when a few people leave, it won't be enough to fundamentally alter the dynamics - we'll still be stuck with the whims of kennedy determining the outcomes on issues that make the wingnuts freak out. this is especially important in the light of the 2000 election - ancient history, i know, but now that we finally have some semi-reasonable people in charge of making decisions, we can start fixing all the shit that has accumulated. to quote brad delong (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/the-supreme-cou.html):
Seven Republicans, only three of them attached to reality, and two Democrats.
This degree of Republican partisan entrenchment in the court is--in a word--bizarre. It is not a good thing.
Moreover, this Supreme Court forfeited any claim to be due deference from the other branches of the government when it prostituted its office to install George W. Bush as president eight years ago. It then established a new constitutional principle: that if an election is close and if one party has appointed an overwhelming majority of justices of the Supreme Court, that majority gets to decide the election.
Republican hack Alex Castellanos said last night, on CNN: "There is no way for us Republicans to win this election unless we had a 9-0 majority on the Supreme Court." That was a joke. But it really wasn't a joke at all, was it?
Think about that.
Is this a constitutional principle that we want established? No. But it will be established unless we declare that this is not, in fact, a constitutional moment we want to embrace.
How can we push back? How can we keep this from becoming an established constitutional principle? All five of the Bush v. Gore justices should have been impeached, but the Republicans--for partisan political reasons--would not step up to the plate. However, now that George W. Bush is on the way out perhaps Republican senators can be persuaded that they do not want "he who appointed the judges wins" to be part of our constitution.
so what, if anything, should be done? is the court fine as is? should the justices who whored themselves out as part of the majority in bush v. gore be impeached or otherwise forced from power? should obama and his nearly unstoppable mandate boost the number of justices, either temporarily or permanently?