David Harsanyi:
This time around, both of our big-government candidates deserve to grapple with gridlock for the next four years. There’s simply no better antidote to the authoritarianism and corruption that’s infected our political causes. In fact, if Republicans somehow hold the Senate, they should also have the spine to preserve the even 4-4 split in the Supreme Court to stop a potentially progressive judicial branch from further empowering the state.
For those who believe stopping runaway government is a political liability, remember that despite the incessant warnings from Democrats, the GOP was not punished for its obstinacy. It won two wave elections and more than 900 local seats during the Obama years. Imagine what it could have done with competent leadership.
. . .
From a conservative perspective, surely even a timid Congress is more useful than one which “fixes” Obamacare and overturns the Hyde Amendment and passes anti-gun legislation and revisits cap and trade — and proposes dozens of other bills Republicans allegedly haven’t prevented. This is all going to happen if they lose. In the end, Trump won’t only lose the presidency; he’s going to help Democrats create one-party rule.
Heh. Great minds!
 |
| First meeting of U.S. Supreme Court (1790 and 1791) |
This is my basic position too. I'd love to see the Supreme Court remain at eight justices. First, for practical considerations given the impossibility of confirmation of another Scalia. Second, for philosophical reasons in that I would like to see the court return to its
original structure of needing closer to 4 out of 6 (67%) votes to "make policy" than 5 out of 9 (56%).
 |
| 1869 Supreme Court (photo by Matthew Brady) |
6 comments:
They'll only have six justices hearing the upcoming appeal of the Muslim suit against Ashcroft et. al., as two have recused themselves.
That case pits some Muslims who feel that they were unlawfully detained immediately after 9/11 until the DOJ and other agencies could fully verify that they were not linked to terrorism.
Interesting, Max. Back to the original Supreme Court number. Will need 2/3rds to make policy one way or the other.
Yes, TD - if I recall correctly from the article on the subject a few days ago, Kagan and Sotomayer have recused themselves from the case, so it will be interesting to see what transpires there.
Hmm. Kagan didn't recuse herself from the Obamacare case. Do you think that means she and Sotomayer don't think this case is that important?
I don't think they want to weigh in because Islamic terrorism is too hot for them to handle. This isn't clear-cut, because Ashcroft et. al. had to determine after the events of 9/11 whether or not these guys had terror connections. That takes time. These guys are suing because they feel that it took too much time.
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation, Max!
Post a Comment