God Save This Court

stuart sibley said...

You want the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality of the Iraq war?...Like it rules on the constitutionality of a law? Oh man, let's open a huge can-o-worms. What would we do it they ruled it unconstitutional - turn over the retreat to the judges? I can see it now. "Rehnquist has ordered the 3rd Cavalry division to pull back to the Salifah - Tikrit line until Scalia decides what to do with the airbase north of Baghdad." What silliness you propose.

I say that the Supreme Court has already overstepped its bounds. We have a judiciary that is out of control, with few restraints. It was unconstitutional for the federal courts to take over the school system and prison system in Texas. If the Supreme Court becomes any more activist than it is now, there will be a backlash. The Wall Street Journal on Friday called for a constitutional amendment to limit the appointees to 18 year terms, with a new judge appointed every 2 years. Lifetime appointments are not working, they say.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Terry responds:

What I'd like is for someone with cajones to march over to a federal court the next time Congress chickens out on its constitutional obligations. You're right that as of now there's no legal relief available short of the court ordering the troops home. That's wh you nip it in the bud.

If any war justified a declaration, it was Iraq. As a war of choice, there was absolutely no immediacy to ordering military action. There were months of debates and discussions, and threats and all that. All Congress had to do was declare that a state of war existed. This doesn't even require troops, planes and ships to take off. Just that a state of war exists. As clearly did after Bush's folly and still does.

The right has been screaming for a "backlash" against the courts ever since they let the colored kids go to school with the white kids. Fortunately, as the Republican shakiness over eliminating the judicial filibuster shows, when all is said and done, cooler heads prevail. Usually.

The federal judiciary is supposed to be removed from political passions. That's the point of the judiciary in general, and the federal judiciary particularly. The right's problem with the courts is that they work too well, and that's scary.

What's an eighteen year term supposed to do? Do they get re-appointed afterwards, so that they have to start producing politically attractive holdings as their term runs out? Do they just go home after eighteen years? If so, then they're still free to rule as they see fit, as it should be.

If this is the sort of remedy the right's arguing for fixing what ain't broken, then heaven help the Republic.