How many years has it been that Mad Dog has claimed the Supreme Court of the United States is simply a political organism dressed up to look impartial and cleaving to the arcane body of work called "The Law?"
But, of course, Mad Dog has had to admit he is simply a humble citizen, untrained in law, unversed in history, and voicing an opinion based only on what he can find on the internet, which includes the opinions of the court for every year, on every case.
Now, however, we have experts, professors of law, professors who "study the court" quoted in today's New York Times, saying, in those tempered academic tones, essentially just that.
Mad Dog's argument has been simple: If it is possible for someone untrained in the law to read a single paragraph summary of any case before the court and to predict with greater than 90% accuracy how the court will divide on the case then one must conclude the court is not being guided by different interpretations of the law, but by the very measuring stick used to predict the outcome with such unfailing accuracy. If you can say, well, this case basically pits the interests of the rich or the powerful or the authority against the claims or interests of the underclass, the poor or the weak and Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts will vote for the ruling class in every case, then one must accept that is what guides the four horsemen of this conservative apocalypse. Let us always vote establishment.
So, if it's a schoolboy holding up a derisive poster, thumbing his nose at the principal of his school when she tries to force students to support the "Olympic movement," or if it's the case of a rich corporation trying to claim the right of free speech as an individual, even though there may be stockholders of that corporation who disagree with that speech made in their name, or if it's a law passed by a predominantly black city (Washington, DC) to oppose the authority of the powerful National Rifle Association and claim that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to a gun but only guarantees guns to members of a well organize militia--if in any and all these cases you have only to identify who is in power and who is not, to know who this court will embrace, then law has nothing to do with it.
We really should allow each President to appoint one new justice each year of his presidency; and we should allow only the mostly recently appointed nine to vote. Then we'd have recognized what the court really is--just another political animal in Washington, which should be at least indirectly controlled by the electorate, to reflect the will of the people.
Mad Dog,
ReplyDeleteAs we've discussed before, I see your point, why continue the charade of impartiality, however, I'm not quite in agreement that your plan is the best course of action. I still think it solidifies that which is most offensive about the court, the political polarization. Yes, I know that is the reality in the current court, but as Liptak pointed out in his piece, that has not been the case historically. So if there was a non-partisan court in the past it doesn't seem that unreasonable to think the pendulum could swing back at some point. ( why do I think there isn't a chance you agree..)
I realize that waiting for the tide to turn means we are stuck with the current court, for who knows how long, with untold opportunity to provide rulings that ship us back into the dark ages. How did you like Scalia saying he doesn't like hostile sources of news-no Washington Post or NYTimes for him-he gets "most of his news from the radio on the way to work-the talk guys". Think he means NPR or that bastion of fairness and neutrality"Talk Radio" with Rush and Glen Beck. What's rather shocking -even for him-is that he's so arrogant about his lack of varied sources of information. He's not even pretending he's listening to both sides. Even I, when curious about what's going on in Nutville, will listen, albeit briefly, to Limbaugh, Beck or Fox News. Is it to much to expect a Supreme Court Justice to have varied and impartial sources of news-that seems so basic, it really is preposterous that it's not the case.
Speaking of Nutville, how did you like Karl Rove showing such concern for Hillary and her health-worried that she may have suffered brain damage. Well you know she was wearing those dark glasses and that can only spell one thing-and think of the plight of the country with a brain damaged female at the helm.... Good God, he is a prime example of a sewer rat, smarter than his fellow rodent Limbaugh, but still a rat....
Maud
Maud,
ReplyDeleteI heard Bill Clinton on Rove's new gambit. Clinton laughed and said, "Well, first they said she was fabricating an injury to avoid having to answer and now they say the injury was so real and so serious it disqualifies her from office. They don't care what the truth is. All they care is what they can use to say what they want to say." Or words to that effect.
Scalia used to appear on a show with Fred somebody which was a roundtable discussion of Our Constitution, before he was a supreme court justice and he had an almost Jesuit quality to him--able to see the other side and examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument before coming back to where you know he had to come, the central dogma. Since he's been on the court, he's got older, less willing to listen. He knows all the answers now.
Mad Dog