Hey, I hope you all had a good weekend. I am not feeling particularly inspired this morning.
There was an interesting development in Utah over the weekend in that a GOP senator who was the incumbent lost his primary. What that means is that he is not going to be able to run for office. He could run as a write in candidate but he will not be nominated by the GOP party.
Most analysts think that he basically got politically assassinated by the more conservative Tea Party people in the state. I am not sure what it means. But I do find it very interesting that an incumbent is getting knocked around by his own party. This does not happen often and makes me wonder what this next election cycle is going to look like nationwide. I think it could go one of two ways. I think either the Democrats will end up stronger as the GOP eats itself with all the in-fighting. The end result might mean that the Republican party the GOP ceases to exist in a few years. Or that all of the dissatisfaction with President Obama causes the GOP to become even stronger and the final two years of President Obama's term becomes one where absolutely nothing gets done in Washington. So, there you have it my predictions for the future.
Also the President nominated another Supreme Court Justice. I just do not really care. We have had conversations on the blog before about my feelings about the Supreme Court. I do not like them. I do not like the institution and I do not like that they are appointed for life. I think that they are a completely undemocratic institution in America and they do not benefit us as a country. If you disagree that is fine and I would love to have a conversation about that as well. It isn't that I do not think they are needed. I just do not think they should be appointed to serve for a lifetime. That bothers me.
That is all. Good day sir!!
5 comments:
I'm curious as to your institutional issues with the Supreme Court...
I'm pretty sure it's the for life part, I doubt Lance has an issue with having a branch of government that exists to interpret the laws the other two branches put into place. My issue is that the executive branch is the one who nominates the members of the court, always placing the person with the closest belief structure to that sitting executive branches up. Why not choose the person who is most qualified, not regarding the political bent of the individual, after all are not these justices supposed to look at the letter and not just the intent of the law?
That's begging the question, of course, that the Legislative branch (or the Judiciary, or the general public, for that matter) would follow more objective criteria than the Executive currently does. That's demonstrably not the case.
I will try to lay out my position tomorrow. I just need to track down some of my writings and format my thoughts. But I do have them.
The purpose behind a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court was to try to assure that there would be as little partisan and political pressure on the justices as possible.
Its like tenure for teachers, in theory it leaves them free to make the right decision and ignore the will and whims of the public, focusing only on the constitution and law.
In practice, fallen human beings are flawed and make poor choices and decisions, often based on their own whims and political ideology.
Like all of government, the judicial system has flaws, but if everything was working as it was supposed to, we'd see fewer.
Post a Comment