As I write, Brett Kavanaugh is not yet a Supreme Court Justice. I assume he will be one soon. I am going to argue that this is the best of the bad possible outcomes.
Yes this is making the best of a bad situation and pathetic motivated reasoning. Yes Collins’s speech drove me into an almost insufferable panic and despair (don’t ask me ask, my soon to be ex-wife if I don’t get a hold of myself [by blogging]). Consider this post emergency marriage therapy (or my bothering you by my recognition of her 8th amendment rights).
First it is clear that a very large fraction of the US public believe that Kavanaugh is a criminal and think it is very wrong for him to serve on the Supreme Court. In polls this seems to be a plurality not an absolute majority.
Also, on Thursday, he demonstrated that he is a raging partisan who aims to use his robe to punish his political adversaries. I think this was already clear to anyone who paid attention, but it is now clear to many people who looked the other way. They include lifelong Republican Justice John Paul Stevens a retired justice who argued against confirmation of a new one. This is unprecedented. The ABA reopened their evaluation of Kavanaugh when it was too late to influence the Senate. I am pretty sure that is unprecedented too. 2,400 law professors signed a viral petition arguing against confirmation of someone who was likely to be incredibly powerful. I suspect this is unprecedented event 3.
This means that the perceived legitimacy of the Supreme Court is in great danger (as it was in 2000 and as it was when the Warren Court decided to take the Constitution seriously). I’d also say that Justice Kavanaugh will attract attention to the misdeeds (torts not crimes) undoubtably committed by Justice Thomas and his felonious denial of those facts under oath. He was never a legitimate Justice, and that will no longer be over looked.
5-4 decisions with Kavanaugh and Thomas in the majority will be perceived to be illigitimate by a very large fraction of the population (I guess eventually reaching a majority but maybe just a plurality). This is exactly what Chief Justice John Roberts fears most — and can prevent any time he wishes. 5-4 decisions with Kavanaugh in the minority will not destroy the perceived legitimacy of the Court or endanger the constitutional order. I hope Justice Roberts (who clearly votes based on the outcome he prefers and can rationalize anything) will act accordingly.
Also packing the court is a very extreme act which would definitely endanger the Republic. It was done — in the 1860s. The congress that changed the number of justices also impeached President Andrew Johnson and refused to seat representatives and senators elected in Confederate states. This followed the Civil War — after killing each other for 5 years Americans were prepared to change the number of justices if necessary.
It was threatened by F. Roosevelt leading to “a switch in time saves nine” a sudden shift from declaring the New Deal unconstitutional to accepting it, because the alternative was a packed court. I may have made a mistake above. I guess Roberts fears court packing even more than he fears perceived illigitimacy — the two are so closely linked it would be hard to tell even with ESP.
One point is that he can avoid both by voting with the Democrats.
Another is that desperate times call for desperate measures. Court packing is preferable to submission to an undemocratic oligarchy and armed revolution and the GOP may leave us only those three choices.
Agreed. But isn’t it somewhat interesting that this is driving you so nuts that your think your wife is bothered by your behavior?
To paraphrase The Police, is there a political solution to our troubled constitution?
Or, to go back some time, does not the fault remain with us, rather than in our stars?
My sense is that we who disagree with these actions need to recall and study the various means by which our species has survived similar events in the past. More options are available, but only if we make a serious commitment to binding together and finding them.
And a better understanding of how women cope with the perfidy and cluelessness of male behaviors might just be a good start.
You get one ID at Angry Bear, the … or Eric. As to your comments on a wife wanting one’s attendance, I too hear it and comply as life is made easier with a happy wife. The constitution is not troubled, it remains the same. It is those who intend to interpret it in a manner to fit their needs who have the trouble.
Senator Collins speech drove me to rage in its incredible dishonesty. My thoughts:
I doubt court packing will endanger the republic any more than killing the Senate filibuster did and, as you say, the threat of it may induce Roberts, despite his preferences, to keep the right wing in check.
Collins was the voice of reason! Libel may not stop an otherwise qualified nominee tomorrow.
Guilt until proven is in voguen, because democrats want to do to trump what was done to Obomber!
The republic is no more endangered than with the supposed Kenyan!
The democrat money cage is the “issue” here slander and libel the norm amongst them.
Ilsm once again proves he is Trump’s minnie me. What a revolting comment.
50 to 48 to confirm…….
One republican away, Murkowski “present”!
There is no fact which can be presented to you which will cause you to stop and think. This is the type of commentary which caused MSN to shut down, Economists View to quit, Hullabaloo to eliminate comments, etc. It is trolling with inane remarks to which reasonable rebuttal is not enough for the troller. I asked you to stop.
No single branch of the federal government should be able to declare a law unconstitutional.
But the US Supreme Court has assumed that power and has been using it more and more frequently as time has gone by!
So the imperative for the conservatives and the liberals is a US Supreme Court that reflects their own viewpoints. That is why we have these brawls when there is an opening on the court.
A constitutional amendment which limited the power of the US Supreme Court to unilaterally declare a law unconstitutional would solve this problem. But both sides crave the unfettered power that can be exercised thru the court.
So now on to the November elections, where Democrats will find out if this latest brawl was an effective campaign device.
If more than one branch could declare laws unconstitutional, how would we resolve the question?
The thought is the same as clearing the other branches I guess.
If there’s no resolution, we’re left with Andy Jackson giving the court the finger and the court being powerless. Is that what we want? The powerful prevail and everyone else shut up?
As you well know, the judges are black robed gods sitting at their pulpit looking down from their perch at commoners. In face to face conversation, the solution is to call them out. In their pulpits, the other branches support their verdicts regardless of whether they are liars, commit assault or battery, are politicians in disguise, etc. If the resolution is our placing of criminals who never plead a case as a lawyer on the bench, what does it matter? They are as guilty as those they judge.
Perhaps, Roberts will see through Kavanaugh and be the balance to give this court legitimacy. He has before. It is a hope at best.
My wish while in federal court was that Erwin had not introduced us to the court as we never received the brunt of what the judges were thinking. We saw enough tale spinning in state court to cause me to think it may not have been pretty. Perhaps, I would have learned what was really behind the curtains? 99% of the citizenry do not know how justice is actually dispensed. It is not as glorious as what is dispensed or as written in fictional accounts by people such as Grisham. Fun to read but it is terrifying watching it.
There are two other branches of the US government and both of them are elected by American citizens.
The US Congress has no need to declare a law unconstitutional, they can just repeal it and get the President to agree or override the President’s veto.
Let the court continue to issue their rulings on constitutionality but require them to solicit agreement from one of the other branches. Their ruling would only become effective if one other branch agrees.
What we have currently is the appointed members of the US Supreme Court inflicting their constitutional judgements on the two elected branches.
In other words, checks and balances.
This cretin on the court makes me beyond angry, but the system cannot work at all without checks and balances.
The frat boy sex/booze perversions were just a cover for his real problem: Being part of the global elite’s banking pyramid. He ties into the de Rothschild and their 2008 bailout of Donald Trump via the de Rothschild bank of Russia and their “oligarch” syndicate which funneled money through DB.
No wonder Kennedy has been felating Trump. It makes sense. This is what morons like Ilsm don’t get. You represent the global elite by siding with the de Rothschilds. You are traitors who better watch you back. Patriots see you and what you really are.
Everything is not a Jewish conspiracy.