Thursday, July 26, 2007

Pack This Shitball

Given the left's all-encompassing lust for the power, along with their ongoing animosity toward the overarching Constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers, I'm rather surprised that one of the fellow travelers has taken this long to propose the power grab that I thought would be so obvious to them once the Roberts court started issuing opinions:

WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight.

I will pause here to note once again for the benefit of those who get their information from places like MinniMoni or Norwegianinanity, that the ability to read and a deference to the laws passed by the only two branches of the government accountable to The People is not, strictly speaking, an "ideology".

And if it were an ideology, it is one that's far more preferable to the one that would posit so much power in the hands of unelected justices with life tenure.

At any rate, you see it coming but let's allow this drooling pretentious elitist gasbag cut to the chase:

Still, there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices on the Supreme Court. Roosevelt’s 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike.

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

There's so much in those two paragraphs I simply don't know where to begin. So let's try here:

thumbing its nose at popular values

What pray-tell are those "values"? And how has the court thumbed it's nose at said values? The author, something named Jean Smith purports to know, but isn't telling. And in any case it's irrelevant.

The Supreme Court's mission is above all to resolve disputes that involve a matter of law pertaining (usually) to federal jurisdiction. It's job is not - NOT - to discern what "popular values" - what ever the hell that little turd nugget of leftist psychobabble means - and allow it to inform its decision unless and provided that the Congress has left explicit or implicit clues as to what those values might be.

In fact the federal judicial branch is not elected and has lifetime tenure to avoid becoming cowed by popular sentiment at any given moment in history. Because judges don't need to stand for reelection (and Minnesota can learn a lot from this), they are immune from the pressure of always having to make the popular decision that may also be the wrong one. I hasten to add as no small matter, that if you look at a lot of the rhetoric on blogs and from people like Smith here, on many matters legal, the public at large isn't exactly the best place for the court to be taking its cues.

But then of course there's the other side.

I know I've written this in this space before, but it bears repeating: one of the great ironies of our age, is that the same people who went apoplectic over the administration failing to get a few FISA warrants and feel that the executive branch has consolidated too much power under Bush, would also vest quasi legislative power in the one branch of government that isn't elected and whose members are appointed for life. Remember the Ledbedder case, and the exceedingly ignorant reactions (including one from Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself) it spawned from the chattering idiots?

Why do liberals love star chambers?

Do not be surprised if you see this again during the runup (or in the aftermath) of the next presidential election. Changing the composition of the court for the sole purpose of imposing one's own ideology is dangerous and the hallmark of a true Banana Republic.

No comments: