Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Why do we regard the decisions of the Bush Court as legitimate or binding?

Cass Sunstein does some conservative framing on the Bush Court in WaPo today:

The most intriguing development on the Supreme Court this term has been the emergence of a powerful alliance between two different kinds of conservatives: the visionaries and the minimalists.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the visionaries, are not merely predictable in their votes; their sweeping opinions call for fundamental changes in constitutional law. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the minimalists, have also turned out to be predictable in their votes. But their opinions tend to be cautious, narrow and unambitious. They are reluctant to reject the court's own precedents, and attempt to rule in a way that preserves them.

In every one of the term's key cases, including today's momentous decision on school-desegregation plans, the minimalists and the visionaries have agreed on the outcome -- but they have frequently divided on the reasoning.

Er, I've got minor editorial suggestion for Professor Sunstein, and that's that he use change "visionaries" to another word:

And that would be thieves.

The real nature and extent of any "vision" that Scalia and Thomas have was fully revealed in Bush v. Gore, where they stole election 2000 from Gore and handed it to the Republicans.

And why did Scalia and Thomas do that? Well, now it's obvious: They wanted more justices who would vote their way, and only a Republican President could do that. Easy peasy.

Why should we agree that a court so constituted is legitimate? The Republican seizure of the Supreme Court is just one more campaign in the long-running Republican coup that, with the acquiscence of some Democrats, replacing Constitutional government with authoritarian rule. (Just wait 'til we get the challenges to torture and executive power next term: The Bush Court wrote the manual on how to get away with it!)

I know that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is a principle of jurisprudence that isn't directly on point for Supreme Court decisions, but in this case, Bush v. Gore--which I have no plans whatever to "get over"--is the poisonous tree from which all this weeks decisions stem. So, none of these week's decisions are legitimate, and no decision made after any members of the Bush Court were seated is legitimate.

Why should the Republicans be allowed to profit from theft?

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

on winning the presidency in '08, to the exclusion of nearly every other political objective. There will be at least one, maybe more, SCOTUS vacancies in the next presidential term; Goddess help us if a Republican makes those nominations. And with Democrats in control of both the White House and Congress there is at least the possibility of impeachment for both Alito and Roberts for having lied to Congress regarding their commitment to stare indecisis, at least as felonious as lying about consensual extramarital sex.

dumluks's picture
Submitted by dumluks on

So or therefore:
When in the course of pirate events it becomes necessary for even the vast lumpen to pay a tad of attention, Let the people impeach the whole boiling. Vote all of them out and into jail for those that merit it (this will be maybe 80%) and, most important, declare all acts of the Bush administrations and their toady congresses null and void.
That's what I call radical centrism in response to the 'moderation' of the re-thugs.
--ml

Submitted by lambert on

Here:

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,

Maybe somebody can explain to me how "good behavior" can be reconciled by stealing an election, and/or holding office as a result of that theft?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

If we can't impeach, throw in jail, or otherwise try these enablers for war crimes and crimes against humanity and the constitution, then we need to have a new constitutional convention, and get rid of some of the language that they often use to justify their more egregious rulings and laws.

I think James madison suggested we do that every generation or so. With lifetimes now extending to 80 or so years. I;m thinking lifetime appointments to the judiciary should be first to go... set them for like 20 years, because you do need people in there who aren't concerned about politics and public leanings of a moment.

Declare that corporations are not people and do not have all the rights of citizenship. Put something in about death penalty for bad corporate citizend. Do something about the NRA's complete lock on the 2nd amendment.

It should be done. And soon.