What to do about the Supreme Court
This Supreme Court is quite clearly the enemy of progressivism. Soon it will move again (you would think Bush vs. Gore was enough) to frustrate fair and widespread voting in the United States. It will not only legitimize Indiana's blatant effort to minimize voting by the poor and minorities, but also it will bar challenges to other such red state initiatives.
What is to be done? Congress can launch legislative remedies against much, although not all, of what this Court does. It also can expand access to courts, use the Senate confirmation process to challenge anti-progressive nominations, couple judicial salaries with retirement so as to encourage a new and young generation of law professors to go to the bench.
Mostly, Congress can rise to the challenge posed by this Supreme Court to the American Dream. In an age of rising inequality and irresponsible governance, it is critical that Congress not tolerate the Court's roadblocks to progress.
Nawww.
It's progressive all right; that is to say, reactionary to coservative.
What it is not is liberal.
It is paradoxical that the most liberal member of the court is David Souter, appointed by a Republican. It is not so coincidental that Congress was not taken with a monstrous liar and had just rejected him.
The damage is done. The hangover from the past will live with us for a very long time.
Might help to elect liberals in spite of the Supreme Court's willingness to appoint a president instead of letting the voters decide.
Best, Terry
January 12, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Supreme Court is overworked. They need more justices. An expansion from nine to, say, 13 members, (just as soon as the repugnant senate contingent drops below 40) will do the trick.
January 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What good will it do to appoint more progressives that then appoint the president?
How about we make some real changes:
- Prohibit male judges from wearing dresses unless they are transvestites.
- Put them on the same level as everyone else. To accomplish that, the Supreme Court building could be turned over to homeless veterans, soon to be unemployed politicians and political appointees, jobless refugees from Mexico and other such more worthy people. The Supremes could hold their deliberations in the basement of a local mall, a YMCA or other such public place where the people they abuse can make known their opinions.
- Initiate a requirement for classes in study of The Constitution, civics, democracy, duties of citizenship, logic, math and science.
- Pay them by the hour with a time clock at the minimum wage. Though there is a constitutional bar to lowering wages, simply letting inflation caused by their ilk cure the problem could do the trick shortly.
- Initiate a work requirement and schedule home visits by social workers to see they are attending to family matters appropriately.
Even the current retrogrades could shape right up.
Best, Terry
January 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Congress has the power to increase the number of Justices and the court of 9 only has time to hear a small percentage of the cases sent their way. The founders had no way to anticipate how much population growth would take place or the number of states that would join the union.
Another cure for a Supreme Court that strays from constitutional voting principles would be for Congress to mobilize a movement in the states to amend the US Constitution to ensure that all citizens have equal access to voting. (while we're at it, why not a clause that outlaws donations and mandates equal public funding for all candidates running for seats in Congress or the presidency).
If the Democrats in Congress prove they are not so different from Republicans, then voters may have to lead these efforts.
January 13, 2008 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Congress has the power to increase the number of Justices and the court of 9 only has time to hear a small percentage of the cases sent their way. The founders had no way to anticipate how much population growth would take place or the number of states that would join the union.
Another cure for a Supreme Court that strays from constitutional voting principles would be for Congress to mobilize a movement in the states to amend the US Constitution to ensure that all citizens have equal access to voting. (while we're at it, why not a clause that outlaws donations and mandates equal public funding for all candidates running for seats in Congress or the presidency).
If the Democrats in Congress prove they are not so different from Republicans, then voters may have to lead these efforts.
January 13, 2008 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can say that again. :-)
"The Democrats" are not monolithic. There is a vast difference between the wingers like Hillary Clinton and the voices of liberalism like an Edwards or Kucinich. Citizens wishing to change the system will have to vote for change by voting for those who truly offer change, under whatever brand they choose, or overthrow the government by revolt.
I am too tired to revolt today though lots of people falsely claim I am revolting.
Best, Terry
January 13, 2008 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we first see what the majority decision says about the Indiana law? That will be the key to determining how to legislate the issue.
For now and for the next 10 years or so we will have a reactionary Supreme Court, a court that sees the US Constitution as a list of suggestions, and a court that believes in government for the corporations, by the corporations and of the corporations. We need to find ways to survive that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fascist five voted to not strike it down. As it was the most restrictive law . . . Jim Crow is now alive and well in America.
By demnding that the plaintiff be a prior harmed individual or class . . . The Fascist Five squelched the rule of law for two years . . . Just long enough for the ungreased broomstick of Fascist Plutocracy to inflict itself on us from one more cycle if we let it.
January 13, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Dems take control of the WH and retain Congress, they should open preliminary investigations to determine if there is a plausible basis to impeach Roberts, who may have misled Congress in his confirmation hearings.
January 12, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and they can impeach the Bush v Gore majority for election theft.
January 12, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The supreme court is always against progressivism. The few times it does something progressive are so unusual that they are cited for decades. Look at how obstructionist the court was during the entire FDR administration.
This is what the constitution says:
I assume that the "good behaviour" implies a lifetime appointment, but this is not clear. If congress decided to change the term would the court then strike it down?
One possibility would be to allow justices to remain for life, but have to withdraw from hearing regular cases upon reaching a certain age or after a fixed number of years (say 28). They would then remain justices who would be available to work on other matters, such as on commissions or at the federal, regional, court level or to administer settlements.
"Retired" judges already do things like this at the state and local level.
There are things that congress could do, it could remove the classification of corporations as "people". It could pass meaningful electoral reform legislation that would prevent dollars being treated as "speech". Big money likes the present situation, I don't see the political pressure for change.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 13, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Supreme Court is extremely progressive. Been a long time since a president was, in effect, appointed. Not many courts have made more laws than this one.
Progressive is a nebulous term that means pretty much whatever you want it to mean like Humpty Dumpty. This court is quite activist and reactionary.
What it is not is liberal - but rather the reverse.
Best, Terry
January 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a help to call the Court simultaneously progressive and reactionary, but quite correct that they are active in overturning the will of Congress.
"Progressive" has a clear definition in politics, if you accept it, as the rest of us do.
"Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers' rights and social justice." ---Wikipedia.
It also is associated with a few discreditied ideas, like Eugenics and Temperance, but in general it shgould not be in dispute that it implies looking for new answers, not reverting to old or traditional answers.
Hard to reconcile "Originalist" or "Strict Constructionist" with Progressive."
January 13, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is destruction of worker's incomes and rights with sell out to corporate interests part of your progressive agenda like Hillary's or were you thinking of something else that is not defined?
Wikipedia is not a terribly authoritative source.
The true Progressive movement is well and alive today and elects politicians to local offices, notably in Virginia. It isn't remotely like the many reactionaries and even some liberals running from that label. It has a radical history that dates from the like of Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busting Bull Moose Party.
I don't accept evasion as worthy.
Best, Terry
January 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You always succeed in confusing me as to who you are talking about. It was the Court we were discussing, not Clinton. And do you see me defending Clinton, here?
A recent article in New Yorker on Wikipedia reports that its error rate is lower than Encyclopedia Britannica, except for recent postings on controversial topics. Do you dispute the definition or not?
Who is evading? You have a talent for attacking your allies. I only want you to avoid unhelpful contradictions.
January 13, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I just did.
My problem is with the evasive and abusive use of the word "progressive." It does have a history, good and bad, but it is not appropriate use as a synonym for or denial of liberalism.
I plead guilty to objecting to what I think are errors in what friends and enemies alike are saying.
Disinformation is bad whoever does it I think.
Again, I don't think you can attack the court as non-progressive if you can't define "progressive." Progressives historically have generally fought against large corporate interests but have not been notably friends of civil rights. Liberals are the ultimate civil libertarians and tend to fear and distrust both the power of big government and big corporations.
Obviously our Supreme Court, as well as Hillary, are neither progressive nor liberal, except in the sense used by Clinton; i.e., not liberal.
Many of those, like Hillary, calling themselves progressives have no intention of making the court progressive or liberal.
Hillary has claimed she is fighting large corporate interests. Those she says she is fighting are her largest donors.
Make any sense to you?
It does to Hillary's fans apparently.
Best, Terry
January 13, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, I did in fact define Progressive. That you won't accept a definition does not mean it is undefinable.
Suggest you look up "liberal", since most versions of it do imply support for active government, whether big or small, and I call myself liberal because I'm in that camp. Of course, your private language may differ, in which case there may be no hope of communication.
Why the hell are you harping on Hillary Clinton? I'm not a supporter. However, you're nuts if you find much common ground between Scalia and Clinton. There are four hopeless cases on that bench. But there are, for now, five useful ones.
I disagreed strongly with the Kelo case on eminent domain, but I agree with most decisions that had a liberal majority, like on the death penalty.
January 13, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Free Online Dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
Geez, Tom, I don't see a word there about supporting authoritarianism. If you have some other definition for active government or big government, maybe you would like to tell us what it is. The principle of being let alone is what being for civil liberties is about.
Maybe you should get better dictionaries.
Progressive is word for word the same definition but I demur based on a reading of history and current usage. When Hillary announces she is not a liberal but rather a progressive, is she not insisting, like many others calling themselves progressives, that the words have different meanings?
If they are synonyms, then there would be no reason not to use them synonymously would there?
A check on any Progressive website should help you out. You might note that all those belonging to Progressive parties are quite radical in their opinions - not that that is a bad thing. Simply is. Hope you don't need a definition of "is." :-)
Best, Terry
January 13, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How the hell did we get from the Supreme Court to Hillary?
From same dictionary, the adjective:
I hope that's me; it's how I see myself. When I say active government, I include stuff like regulation of commerce, environnmental protection, assistance for the poor and schools, and similar. I do not support authoritarian government,
From the same source, thesaurus:
Geez, I guess I can advocate government programs to help folks and not be evil.
Take the last word, I've had enough.
January 14, 2008 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can advocate anything you wish and not be evil.
You can advocate the government watch what people say and what opinions they express and what books they read and what foods they eat and how they act in the bedroom and all kinds of stuff.
Fact is it costs a lot more to build prisons than universities.
Some of us prefer that government not watch over us too carefully. That;s what they call a liberal.
Others like Big Brother watching things real close. They are conservatives and need big government.
Your choice. Simple huh?
Best, Terry
January 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can advocate anything you wish and not be evil.
You can advocate the government watch what people say and what opinions they express and what books they read and what foods they eat and how they act in the bedroom and all kinds of stuff.
Fact is it costs a lot more to build prisons than universities.
Some of us prefer that government not watch over us too carefully. That;s what they call a liberal.
Others like Big Brother watching things real close. They are conservatives and need big government.
Your choice. Simple huh?
Best, Terry
January 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point of clarification: You are stating that the recessivism of the Fascist Five makes them useful?
Progressive is not recessive. While liberal might be taken as 'given to change' (In Europe, the jack-booted thuggery of fascist plutocratics is referred to as Neo-Liberal), in America the word is applied to those creating openings for human rights and freedoms.
Giving a hand job to corporate oligarchy folk or financial monarchy is just backward-ass by any definition.
The 60's movie "Rollerball" was a cautionary tail not a documentary.
January 15, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's corporate-sponsored campaign IS fighting multi-national corporations by wasting their money lying to the American people.
January 15, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's corporate-sponsored campaign IS fighting multi-national corporations by wasting their money lying to the American people.
January 15, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Constitutional judges by nature are those who are looking backward. They need to maintain as much of the status quo as they can given the history of prior legislation and precedents. I don't think that a person who was intent on effecting social change would be drawn to this field.
So it's not surprising that the courts tend to impede progress. Each real advance requires breaking with history. This is true of the expansion of the franchise and the increase in civil rights of disfavored groups. Aside from these two broad classes most rulings favor business and existing institutions.
I don't see this changing much in the near future. The best that can be hoped for is that the more liberal justices will be replaced by some of a similar bent when they retire. The conservative block isn't going anywhere for the next several decades.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 13, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vote for Senate folk who will ask questions, demand answers and fillibuster until they get them.
Never elect another jack-booted fascist plutocrat to the Office of
President or Vice President again.
Teach humanities in grade, middle and high school.
Demand that colleges and universities meet educational credentialing.
Shatter all monopolies and cartels. Demand that any company doing business with any branch of government be headquartered in the United States.
Roll back taxes to Eisenhower tax rates.
Build guilotines on Bastille Day. Have the Walton brats stand in for Lou and Marie.
Within two generations, America will be fixed.
January 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I recall my history, FDR attempted to increase the number of SC justices in order to get around their obstructionism. He was unsuccessful. I think that was because he, and not Congress was making the change.
If I am right, there is no reason why a Democratic president, with a Democratic Congress, having more than 60 votes in the Senate, couldn't add more justices. I hope this tactic is tried.
The downside is that it would play into the GOP meme of being "stabbed in the back" and the media would go along with that analysis. That might make the Democratic majority disappear rapidly.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 13, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone actually think that Congress will do what is so obvious and right? Of course not. Congress is merely going to continue capitulating to the Republicans.
January 14, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink