One thing we have heard from Democrats supporting judicial filibusters is that it’s wrong for the majority to steamroll over the opposition 100% of the time. As I understand the theory, if those in the minority feel very strongly about something, they should get their way sometimes.
It got me thinking . . .
You know, conservatives have lost a lot of 5-4 decisions over the past few years in the Supreme Court. Some have upset the Justices in the minority only slightly. Others, like Casey (which reaffirmed Roe on stare decisis grounds) and Stenberg (the partial-birth abortion case), have drawn eloquent and impassioned cries of anguish from the dissenters.
Why should a bare majority of Supreme Court Justices be able to dictate that women can authorize their doctors to kill their mostly-born babies by stabbing them in the skull with a pair of scissors and sucking out their brains with a suction catheter?
The solution is obvious. Let’s give Scalia a filibuster, to be used only in rare occasions where he feels very strongly about a decision.
It’s only fair.
P.S. I can hear the leftists now: what about Bush v. Gore? We felt very strongly about that!
Well, you know what? The more I hear about how likely it is that Bush will nominate Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court — and the more I see conservatives growing complacent with that possibility — look . . . I’ll tell you what, leftists. You give me back Casey and Stenberg, and I’ll give you Bush v. Gore.
P.P.S. [Whispered] Conservatives: it’s okay. I’m running down Bush just for show. He would have won anyway.