Or is it?
Republican Senators could block any US Supreme Court appointment not to their liking, not only from lame duck President Obama but from a possible President Hillary. That’s the kind of thing the Democrats, knowing the Republicans would deal eventually, have done.
What if the Republican-controlled Senate held out indefinitely? Five-to-four decisions favoring the Democrats would become impossible. But so would five-to-four decisions favoring the Republicans. Unless something changed there might be deadlock on partisan issues, which probably wouldn’t be a bad thing. But eventually things would change. President Hillary could appoint someone more moderate. The Republicans could lose control of the Senate. Additional justices could die or retire.
OTOH, a demonstration of firmness, even irrational firmness, by Congressional Republicans might pay dividends in the long run. Reagan gained considerable, perhaps decisive, advantage in foreign affairs by firing the striking air controllers.
OTOH, Reagan was an individual and the Republican Senatorial delegation is a coalition. It’s relatively easy to weaken a coalition by bribing or pressuring marginal members to drop out. The prevailing incentives do not favor Republican institutional backbone.
Interesting times ahead.
12 thoughts on “Eight Is Enough”
One negative is that Obama and Reid packed he DC Circuit so 4 to 4 decisions go back to the previous court. If it’s the DC Circuit or the 9th Circuit, it’s a loss for the GOP.
Stand firm. Just say no. That’s what they were elected to do.
“If it’s the DC Circuit or the 9th Circuit, it’s a loss for the GOP.”
It is not a loss or a win for that gang of thieves and incompetents. It is a loss for the American People.
Everything is downstream of immigration. What kind of power would the Democrats have today if Republicans had killed immigration expansion back in 1965? The Democrats would still have their extreme left who incubate all of their crazy schemes but what they wouldn’t have is an army of affirmers rubber stamping all that they do.
It used to be said that America was a moderately conservative and religious nation, differing from Europe and this always bothered the Democratic Left who aspired to be more European. Now they have the voting power to bring about their vision, even if their largest factions don’t actually go along with their schemes – blacks and Hispanics and Asians are not really lifestyle liberal like the white liberal kooks.
Now, because Republicans didn’t want to be called racist, conservatives are losing their country and the Supreme Court is one of the principal agents of change. The Democrats use their voting superiority to put their kooks on the Court and it will only get worse from here. Your plan is a holding action, only through luck will the Republicans be able to bring about a conservative court.
Conservatives who focused on tax and trade policy didn’t really conserve anything and now we’re in this awful place where liberals will have the whip hand hereonafter.
Here is a rule of thumb for evaluating appointments ot the Supreme Court.
Rule No. 1. Every Democrat appointee will vote as instructed by the leftist hive mind. The NYTimes editorial page is a reliable guide to the hive mind’s mentations. Democrat appointees could, as a practical matter be replaced by trained parrots, as their votes and opinions are mere flatus voci signifying nothing.
Rule No. 2. Republican Presidents, despite their professed intentions, are batting no more than .500 on their Supreme Court appointments. Earl Warren, capo of the infamous Warren Court, was appointed by Eisenhower, as was William Brennan. Nixon inflicted Harry Blackmun, author of Roe vs Wade, and his sidekick, Warren Burger, on us. Gerald Ford made the unforgivable mistake of John Paul Stevens. Reagan may have appointed Scalia, but he balanced that with Sandy O’Connor and Tony “Sweet Mystery of Life” Kennedy. Bush 41 may have appointed Clarence Thomas, who is the best of a very bad lot, but he also committed the unpardonable sin of David Souter. Similarly Bush 43 appointed Sam Alito, and the dirty little coward, John Roberts, who wussed out on the most unconstitutional legislation of our lifetime, not once, but twice — may he rot in hell.
The rot runs a lot deeper than the particulars of who sits on the Supreme Court. It has entwined the entire legal profession, the law schools and the judiciary. I wish I could tell you what neat little institutional hacks we could make to stop this monster before it devours us all, but I cannot.
“Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left wing.”
The rot runs a lot deeper than the particulars of who sits on the Supreme Court. It has entwined the entire legal profession, the law schools and the judiciary. I wish I could tell you what neat little institutional hacks we could make to stop this monster before it devours us all, but I cannot
The source of the contagion are law professors. They’re paid to write and to teach and that attracts a certain type of person, heavily predisposed to statism. An intellectual is most often resentful because society doesn’t reward thinkers like it does doers. The market is a tough mistress.
Time limits on faculty appointments, no judges who were law professors.
Tango Man, the source of the contagion may be law professors, but Robert Schwartz is right, the rot runs all the way through every sector of the legal profession, emphatically including private corporate law firms and bar associations dominated by practicing lawyers. As to limiting faculty appointments at law schools, aside from the facts that it ain’t gonna happen, who do you think would replace the faculty on the way out? More leftists.
In defense of Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford, politicians of their generation did not really understand that the left would start using the federal judiciary to overturn political outcomes. It was only in the 50s that the left started to turn away from judicial deference to the political branches, which progressives had championed through the New Deal. Even by the 70s, it was not generally understood that the Left would press this strategy in areas outside of racial discrimination and criminal justice. It took a while for conservative politicians like Nixon and Ford, who were basically nonideological and reactive, to adapt to what was going on.
As to limiting faculty appointments at law schools, aside from the facts that it ain’t gonna happen, who do you think would replace the faculty on the way out? More leftists.
New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina suffered from a concentration of social dysfunction effect in its black community. After Katrina the black population dispersed across the land and the concentration effect was diminished.
Constant churn in law faculties will prevent mind rot from setting in. It’s the concentration of ideological dysfunction which is the problem. People have time to form networks and expand networks and so the mind rot embeds deeply.
I haven’t thought very deeply at all on this subject, this is just me writing off the cuff. If others have better ideas, I’m not wedded to arguing my point.
Tango Man, you have no idea how overwhelmingly leftist the legal profession is. Even lawyers who represent private business and taxpayers against the government, or local government against the federal government, have a personal interest in high regulation, onerous tort liability rules and a complex tax code and high tax rates – dealing with these burdens are their bread and butter. If you’re talking about social or constitutional conservatism (as opposed to a libertarian/free market orientation), the proportion of lawyers holding such views is even smaller. And the left is very good at networking within or without law schools. Further, leftist opinion formation begins long before a young person starts law school – it starts for all kids in elementary school now.
In any event, as I said, there is no chance of your idea being implemented. I only respond because your thinking of it suggests that you don’t understand the extent of the Left’s dominance. As the saying goes, ideas have consequences. About 100 years ago, the Left became dominant among Western intellectuals, and the cancer has now metastasized throughout every sector of society, industry and culture.
I only respond because your thinking of it suggests that you don’t understand the extent of the Left’s dominance.
Fair enough. I concede. As I wrote, the idea was off the top of my head. So how do we solve the problem?
“So how do we solve the problem?”
I don’t know.
Comments are closed.