The constitution was intended to set up processes that would insure a reasonably decent life for, at least, white males with property. Over the years, others got added, at least on paper, to the decision making as voters. The representation of women and people of color has grown in Congress. We saw some very smart women in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, yet in the end, it was white males who dominated once again. "She's credible and poised, but we're going with our guy." For the Republicans, democratic process was short circuited so they could get the outcome they wanted.
The US Constitution begins:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."I hope our newest originalist pays attention to these basic goals (particularly the ones I've highlighted. We certainly are not succeeding when it comes to domestic tranquility and the general welfare is getting less important than the welfare of the wealthy. Senators Graham and McConnell and the president were more worried about justice for some man who might get falsely accused than they were about all the women that have been and continue to be actually sexually harassed, abused, and assaulted.
When Supreme Court justices required 60 votes for confirmation, presidents had to offer justices who were moderate enough to garner at least some votes from the party out of power. The Republicans lowered the bar to 50 votes. And Saturday they got 50 votes from Senators representing only 44.2% of the US population. Those 48 Senators who opposed Kavanaugh represented 55.8% of the US population.
This can be, because every state gets two senators - my state, Alaska, with only under 800,000 people gets the same number of U. S. Senators as California with nearly 40 million people. This disconnect between the idea of majority rule and what really happens has reached the breaking point as McConnell pushed Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court, against popular will and without allowing the FBI to do a real investigation. (The real story - not the he said/she details the media got all over - was what deals people were offered behind closed doors, and what threats were made if they didn't take those offers. The Alaska Republican Party is already considering stripping Lisa Murkowski of her red R.
Such a sharply divided decision bodes nothing good, except maybe stronger calls for reform. It lays bare the partisan nature of the Republicans packing the court. Obama's choice of Merrick Garland was met with bi-partisan recognition of his qualification to be on the court, and McConnell's refusal to even hold hearings. The Democrats had relatively mild opposition to Neil Gorsuch. It was only when a candidate as openly partisan, as Kavanaugh revealed himself in the hearings, was nominated that Democrats really dug in to oppose him.
We are in a crisis of confidence in our government. Here are a couple of possible scenarios I to watch for::
- Chief Justice Roberts has shown at times, that he understands that the court needs credibility. He broke with his fellow (I can use that term because they are all men) conservatives to preserve Obamacare. If he recognizes the crisis that is coming to the court with his name on it, he may well take Kennedy's swing role from time to time.
- If Roberts doesn't work to moderate the courts' decisions, there will be growing calls to increase the size of the court. If you look carefully through the Constitution, you won't find the number of justices set. It's set by Congress and has changed several times over the last two hundred plus years. You can read more about the size of the court here and here
- Since Republicans have taken off their nice masks, it will be hard for Democrats to not follow suit. In Game Theory, the Prisoners Dilemma to be precise, the Tit for Tat strategy wins in the long run. It requires a player to mimic the moves of his opponent. Start by cooperating, but if the opponent 'defects' (in the language of Game Theory), then you need to defect too. If the other side doesn't wise up, this strategy can lead to endless warfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.