(no subject)

[oportet.livejournal.com]

In any given American political debate - both parties are somewhat full of shit - but usually they at least try to hide the fact. But occasionally, the hypocrisy is so thick - covering it up is useless. Now is one of those times.

Republicans don't think a President should nominate a Supreme Court Justice at the end of his term, unless that President is Republican.

Democrats absolutely believe a President should be allowed to fill a vacant seat, as long as that President is a Democrat.

When the situation suits them, one party will cite the constitution, and the other will cite an unwritten rule.

With video evidence of almost every major political figure in the country arguing the exact opposite point they're arguing now when the roles were reversed - whether they are full of shit isn't really in question - but you have to wonder why neither side has the tact to present a better argument than 'they did it so we can do it too'.

I really don't know much about this Garland fella (I suppose I could google him but my ignorance will make the post seem more genuine - maybe I'll look into him more after I send this through).

He seems nice - obviously qualified - and gracious for the opportunity. Shame on both sides - those who refuse to even consider him given his service so far, and those who threw him into the spotlight as a political statement already knowing the outcome - apparently giving more of a shit about a line in the middle their legacy than the first paragraph of his.

Even though I know it isn't true, I'd like to at least be able to pretend I'm naive enough to think the Supreme Court is distinguished, somehow separated from and above all the day-to-day Republican vs. Democrat bullshit we pay attention to.

If you're on the right - would you rather take Obamas pick, or take your chance with Hillary or Trumps pick? If you're on the left - pretend you're on the right and answer the first question - or fast forward to maybe 4 or 8 years from now when the tables are turned and convince me you'll want to end the cycle of following unwritten rules over written ones.

Comments

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

Those are politicians. They're full of shit by definition. Even the shitless (sic?) politician always has some shit in them, and they'll be sure to display it at the most (in?)convenient moment.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The whole idea of politicians appointing supreme court members and then pretending that the supreme court is somehow "above" and "beyond" politics, is bullshit. It's a masquerade. The judicial branch is not independent, it's an extension of the legislative and executive branch. There's no balance of powers. A handful of political appointees are able to decide the fates of millions of people, often on whimsical interpretations of vague laws that border on the arbitrary. Their decisions roughly reflect the current balance of powers between the two partisan cliques that are calling the shots. There's no justice. There's the rule of the strong. Whichever clique enjoys more influence at the moment, dictates the interpretation of the laws. Everything beyond this is just bullshit for the gullible.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

The question is then raised: what's the alternative?

Certainly a co-equal judiciary is a good thing (as an arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws and their adherence to fundamental principles of rights,) so we're left asking how members of that judiciary should be selected. I understand the problems with doing so through appointment by the executive, but there are distinct, and some might argue greater, problems with putting such positions up for popular election. Hamilton's concerns in Federalist 76-78 are legitimate ones, and I'm not sure I've ever heard a compelling argument in favor of an alternate model.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

They should be selected from something like a judicial parliament, i.e. only members of the professional lawyer circles. Otherwise they're not going to interpret the laws professionally but along partisan lines, the way their partisan leaning dictates.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

See, then we get into questions of completely overhauling the system, and so many people buy into that old "better the devil you know" argument. ;)

"only members of the professional lawyer circles"

There's an argument sometimes made that perhaps we adhere too closely to such things: that almost every Supreme Court justice of the last 50 years has gone to one of the same handful of schools, had the same background in law, the same sort of career... on the other hand, when one reads the court opinions, these folks, while certainly biased, do understand law and do more often than not base their opinions on those grounds. Exceptions exist, of course.

"They should be selected from something like a judicial parliament,"

I'd recommend also doing away with this "first past the post" nonsense and start adopting a more Australian and European electoral model. Everyone votes, period. Votes are made by preference. Anyone who gets a proportion of the vote gets a proportion of the say, making third parties viable and their demands something the major parties must compromise with.

Honestly, the idea that our specific form of government (meaning it's specific structure) is the only possible form it could ever take, or that it is the only form that could possibly preserve the rights enumerated in the Constitution, is perhaps too firmly wedded in our national consciousness. There are tons of great ways to do it; lots of other nations prove that! We should be more willing to look at what works, and what doesn't, and tailor our own system accordingly.

(I can understand reluctance to start pulling on loose threads, though, in fear of unraveling the entire tapestry.)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yeah I know, overhauling the system sound like such a horror compared to preserving the status quo!