Skip to main content

View Diary: Why the GOP is good (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  SCOTUS Will Probably Liberate Corporate Speech (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boreal Ecologist

    next year and all the youtubing in the world isn't going to be noticeable in the resulting political "discourse" issued to us by the economy.

    Knowing that the right never rolls out a message program before September, I think most here aren't anticipating what the health bills are going to face 6 weeks from now.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:34:26 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  5 Unelected Cardinals have Enormous Power (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, Kylopod

      Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas & Kennedy can get out their red pencils and draw a line through EVERYTHING that President Obama or the DEM Congress try to accomplish. That doesn't sound "dead" to me.

      A boner is a terrible thing to waste.

      by Otherday on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:59:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        People forget the huge power the SCOTUS has. Bush hit a home run by picking John Roberts, a right-wing Chief Justice in is 50s. Bush's influence will be felt for several generations.

        •  A SCOTUS Wall to Progress (3+ / 0-)

          The terms for justices ought to be set and staggered, so that 2 are appointed during each presidential term - in my humble opinion. Amend the Constitution. Screw life-time appointments for 40 year-olds.

          As it is, those 5 Cardinals, all right-wingers, could very well thwart any and all progressive initiatives in much the same way the those "angry men" back in the '30s tried to block FDR's New Deal. None of them are likely to retire until, sometime in the next 25 to 30 years, another conservative president is in the White House to replace them. Strategic retirements in this fashion warp the SCOTUS so that it is completely out of sync with the surrounding country, like some alien, elitist cabal of overlords, and to hell with all the "consent of the governed" nonsense.

          A boner is a terrible thing to waste.

          by Otherday on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 08:30:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            but it would be hard to amend, since there would always be a current batch of justices who would strongly resist having their contract broken by having their term cut short. The only way I could see such an amendment even conceivably being accepted is if it only applied to future justices. And then nobody would accept it, because no party would want to be the one cursed with the first batch of temporary justices.

            •  All Judges are Temporary (0+ / 0-)

              As it is, the "temporary" terms may be 50 years. Screw that. We've outgrow it as a country. Establish fixed, staggered terms for the Supreme Court. FIFO (first in first out) for the present crop.

              An amendment could be crafted so that each judge gets to serve, say, 9 or 12 years, then leave, like David Sauter did, so that they aren't taken out on a stretcher or fall over while on the bench. The justices would still be "independent" in the same sense that they are now. Each would serve, do their best, then go home and not wear out their welcome. The regular rotation of new blood and brains would refresh the old, stall joint.

              I disagree that the sitting justices have any sort of "contract" with the public. Then again, due to the nature of the job, the current occupants might interpret the document to require that they keep their jobs as long as they so choose.

              A boner is a terrible thing to waste.

              by Otherday on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:47:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'd love to see it happen (0+ / 0-)

                but my point is that getting such an amendment passed will be a Catch-22, because on the one hand people will strongly resist the idea that the current justices will have their life-terms cut short, and if the rule only applies to all future justices, it will weaken the influence of whichever party is next in power. For example, if the amendment passes tomorrow, all Obama justices will be bound by the rule, but John Roberts will still stay on the court for generations.

                •  Amendment Must Include All the Justices (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Any amendment of this sort should include language that specifically requires that it be applied to all the justices.

                  Too bad about imaginary contracts. We freed the slaves and didn't pay the slaveowners for those slaves, although such plans were floated about and rejected. We banned, then lifted, restrictions on booze - and didn't compensate, say, saloons for the inconvenience. Constitutional amendments slam the door shut, or open it, with definiteness.

                  I agree that it would suck if the 5 Cardinals get to keep their life appointments while all the new people come and go around them. That wouldn't fly.

                  A boner is a terrible thing to waste.

                  by Otherday on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:07:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site