I mentioned yesterday that I would address my problems with the Supreme Court here in America. So here we go.
It isn't that I have a problem with the Supreme Court existing. But I have a problem with how it is made up. I do not like the fact that it is a position that is made up of appointed individuals. Now, I realize I am yelling about a problem and I have not come up with a way to fix it. I am not sure how we would go about it. I realize that it would be problematic to have an election every time a judge needs to be replaced. It is enough of a head ache to have a presidential election every four years.
But those problems aside. I guess my biggest issue with the Supreme Court is that it is an appointed position that is a lifetime appointment. I find it disturbing that in a country that at least gives lip service to the idea of democracy. The highest court in the land is made up of lifetime appointees. Another area of concern for me is that if Kagan becomes a justice that means that 5 of our justices will have gone to Harvard. Let me think, who else in politics has gone to Harvard?
Oh! That's right. George W. Bush and Barack Obama both went to Harvard along with Al Gore the administration before. I do not know about you guys but I am getting tired of the Ivy Leagues running our country. I am not sure but the last time I looked they do not seem to be doing a very good job of things. In fact 18 of past and present Supreme Court justices have come out of Harvard. I will admit that I sometimes like to dabble in conspiracy theories and it is mainly for my own amusement. But I think one could build a pretty good case and find valid reasons to be concerned with the fact that the majority of people making and interpreting law in this country have all gone to the same university. That sameness of institution concerns me.
That is all for today.
12 comments:
With regards to Harvard, it's an unusually prominent and well-regarded law school. Conspiracy theories aside, I'm not shocked when a large percentage of prominent engineers are graduates of MIT or Carnegie-Mellon, just as there's no surprise at the number of prominent performers coming from Julliard.
Success is not always an indicator of underhanded scheming.
BTW, I assume you've given some thought to the reasons why Supreme Court justices were made lifetime appointments in the first place...
Both, a valid point about MIT. But I still do not like Ivy league, tweed wearing and pipe smoking intellectuals. Your question about me giving thought is a good one. I have thought about it and read some things on it. I am not sure if I agree with them or not though.
It would be easier for me to agree if I didn't think that often Supreme Court rulings were decided based on constitutional interpretation as opposed to what ever way the political wind was blowing when they were appointed.
I know they are human and fallible but they are supposed to be able to rise above some of the petty nature of politics.
Bennet was warned that if he voted for massive spending and debt, he'd be thrown out on his ear. He voted for that stuff anyway, and the people hurled him out. This isn't some kind of GOP civil war, its the voters tired of being jerked around and doing what they warned they would.
Regarding Harvard and Princeton, these aren't the schools they once were; the are coasting on former glory and prestige.
That's OK, they probably don't like buckskin wearin', steer ropin' tabacky chewers like us, either. Fortunately, there's no correlation between likability and cogency, so we're all off the hook.
"This isn't some kind of GOP civil war, its the voters tired of being jerked around and doing what they warned they would."
I can acknowledge that statement but I think that because the majority of the voters that are involved in the Tea Party movement are Republican this is being perceived by the GOP old guard as a civil war. Now, granted they may not be understanding the whole picture. I am not surprised that the old guard GOP are not getting it. I do not think the political establishment of either party are fulling understanding or grasping the seriousness of the situation.
hmmmph, I wear coonskin and it is in the form of a loin cloth. I also chew a paste made up of coffee beans and banana leaves. It gives me energy and has potassium.
With all respect, I think the idea that Bennett lost favor because he voted for big spending and debt is at best a gross oversimplification, and at worst a bit of a straw man.
Bennett received little or no heat for the years he supported big spending and debt for GOP priorities. His sin was arguably in doing the same for Democratic priorities.
It's interesting to note that Congress draws such public ire for partisanship and gridlock, while legislators themselves bear the public ire (in a primary environment, anyway) for failing to show ideological purity to the party line, a recipe guaranteed to create partisanship and gridlock. Bennett and Lieberman are both excellent case studies, not that I'm much of a fan of either.
Mencken would seem to be right in this instance when he wrote (and I'm paraphrasing) that Democracy was a system designed to give the public the government they deserved. Compromise is the very lifeblood of the legislative process, the only way action is possible when no single faction holds overwhelming power, yet we tend to view compromise as a taint to ideological purity when our elected officials do it.
Enough ranting. Discussions of partisan politics nearly always devolve into such an emotional, irrational morass that I try to make myself avoid the subject (in public, anyway).
Back to Lance's issues with the Supreme Court- no doubt the institution is flawed, as is the process by which Justices are chosen. It's not enough to point out those flaws as justifying changes to the institution or process, however, without first concluding that the alternatives would be less flawed. The standard for comparison is not the ideal, but the achievable.
The rationale for nomination and confirmation v. election was to insulate the Justices from the political process and the sort of windblown non-objective criteria that the public is prone to. There may be inherent risks in nomination as well (witness Harriet Miers), but nomination itself does not guarantee a seat on the bench (witness Harriet Miers), and unlike elected offices, the Supreme Court has, to its credit, been remarkably free of pro-wrestlers.
The lifetime appointment similarly intends to insulate the Justice from the political process, rather than risk the Justice using his/her office to curry political favor for future appointments in the same or other offices.
I'm sure you know all of this and have given it thought, but flawed as the current Court is I have a difficult time conceiving of the alternatives yielding a less-flawed result.
I agree with the above. I think that is part of my frustration with the whole institution. It seems so messed up that there has to be a better way. But, I think in my gut I realize that there isn't and that just makes me more bothered.
You and I are not exactly Euclidean ideals, either, and institutions reflect the societies they serve, warts and all. Institutions which do not reflect the societies they serve generally have very short lives.
In the 24hr news cycle world, everything sucks. The real world doesn't bear much resemblance, IMHO, of course.
Bennett received little or no heat for the years he supported big spending and debt for GOP priorities.
I understand why you say that and do recognize the logic behind it, but you're missing a key component here. First, he did get a lot of heat for his spending tendencies under the Bush administration, and anger was growing then (and the decades before that). There is always a break point for everyone at which they go beyond "man I wish they'd stop doing that" to "THIS STOPS NOW!" The fact is, watching the overspending of previous administrations explode into insanely gargantuan levels barely comprehensible to the ordinary person is what drove people past that point.
The fact that Bennett won previous primaries to grudging, angry voters and got hurled out now doesn't mean this is some kind of merely partisan reaction, but the culmination of decades of building fury and frustration. The tea kettle finally started whistling, and I don't think ANY of us are fully aware of what this will ultimately lead to.
Post a Comment