Skip to main content

View Diary: Federal judge shows only fools think the parties are the same (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wish I could recommend this a thousand (25+ / 0-)

    times. The judiciary are the ultimate arbiters and I don't think it is exaggeration to say that the future of democracy may well hinge on the character of court appointments during the next ten or fifteen years. Citizens United and McCutcheon have shown that no matter what the executive or legislative branches do, the courts, especially SCOTUS, can apply their agenda driven constructions of the law in order to impose their distorted vision on the Nation. The law is what they say it is.

    They can pervert the electoral process, can do irreparable damage to education, can further privilege the already privileged, can concentrate information dispersal in the hands of a few bloated corporations, can allow the internet to bend to the will of monied gatekeepers, can skewer economic law to favor the already favored. In short, we are nearing a point where the damage may be beyond remedy. This is a self-perpetuating calamity for the health of the nation.

    This is why I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that we are in crisis and must concentration our efforts on preventing the ultra conservatives from controlling the appointment process.

    In truth the Bush appointed Court (which I prefer to call the Nader Court because, IMHO, he enabled it) may well have already taken us beyond the point of remediation. Its just absurd to think that the country will be the same with a president from either party, as if it doesn't matter. Think how different things would be if Nader had not handed the election to Bush in 2000. There would be no Citizens United, no McCutcheon, no Iraq war, the environment would be a lot healthier, and on an on.

    There can be no doubt that disaffected splinter groups have in the past had invaluable influence on the course of American history. But it is a matter of timing. This is not the time for internal division on the left. The ideological balance in the courts is hanging precariously on the edge and we have seen what a conservatively leaning Court can do. Imagine what can happen if there is a solid majority of ultra conservatives to dictate the direction of jurisprudence. The consequences are too frightening to contemplate. It is hard for me to understand why so many people refuse to see that we are staring into the abyss.

    "PLEASE STOP EATING ANIMALS" Fourth Grader's Crayon Poster.

    by Pirogue on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:34:33 AM PDT

    •  If the Repugs gain the Senate, the SCOTUS (7+ / 0-)

      appointment will be a complete mess.  The Republicans will delay and hold hearings and try to prevent anyone from getting appointed until past 2016.  Obama may try a recess appointment and it'll go to the current SCOTUS and they'll give it to the Republicans and all hell is going to break loose.

      Anyone who stays home from this election is beyond a fool.

      •  If it is one of the 5 that retires/exits the court (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pollwatcher, Sister Havana

        then we'll be 4-to-4 with Roberts as the extra thumb on the scale.

        Ugly, to be sure.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:59:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Generally speaking, it is often 4 - 4 already, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          polecat

          Kennedy is usually the one who can be swayed one way or another.

          Lately, though, he has shown a lot of fondness for Roberts and the decisions have been decidedly conservative.

          At the same time, anyone who thinks that judicial appointments are vitally important should ask why this administration doesn't have a full line-up of judges nominated for openings which exist.

          Obama, like Clinton before him, didn't put a lot of emphasis or time into making sure the federal benches were filled, while Republican presidents shift into overtime to insure they can appoint as many as possible.  I don't understand why that is....

          Does anyone?

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:02:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Linky, for those who are curious: (0+ / 0-)
            There are currently 77 vacancies on the federal district and appellate courts.[1]  With over 850 authorized judicial seats, this represents a nine percent vacancy rate.  This alarmingly high vacancy rate has persisted for over four years; indeed, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service recently determined that we are in the longest period of historically high vacancy rates in 35 years.[2]  In addition, over 44 percent of the existing vacancies (34) are in courts so overburdened that they have been designated "judicial emergencies" by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. [3]  Millions of people live in jurisdictions with judicial emergencies.[4]
            Obama administration shifts into higher gear this year... what were they doing the last five years when the courts were just as important?

            Judicial vacancies.   Administration needs to get to work:  77 vacancies, only 40 nominated.  Barely over 50%.  Why aren't there 77 nominees???

            "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

            by YucatanMan on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:09:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site