Give Supreme Court Justices a Filibuster
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.
Deal?
P.P.S. [Whispered] Conservatives: it’s okay. I’m running down Bush just for show. He would have won anyway.
Great idea. Huzzaba another?
With a 9-person SCOTUS, anytime there are at least 3 dissenting justices on a case, then a 2/3 majority of the combined congress can overrule?
In fact, even better, make it that a 2/3 majority of those who vote on the issue can overrule, thus forcing any wannabe-abstainers to stand and be counted, as is their job.
Just suggesting, and I’m not sure if I’d really want it, but some mechanism short of the multi-year constitutional amendment process seems to be needed. Other branches of govt are limited in their ability to abuse their roles via much swifter & more effective checks and balances. Why not this one?
There’s always been something strange to me about the law, anyway. Break it and you’re in deep doo-doo, but even Supreme Court judges can’t agree on what it really means in the first place. Well, that’s clear as mud.
ras (f9de13) — 7/10/2005 @ 4:55 pmI think in some sense they are filibustered. Like, do you imagine people will stop putting up 10 commandments monuments that violate the recent rulings? I don’t think so.
actus (54a28a) — 7/10/2005 @ 5:04 pmgive scalia and thomas 2 votes each. tha way there are no mistakes on appointments.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 7/10/2005 @ 6:54 pm“As I understand the theory, if those in the minority feel very strongly about something, they should get their way sometimes.
Whoever wrote that doesn’t understand the theory at all.
There is no “getting their way” involved in the framework of a libertarian concept. The beauty of these things is that no matter what someone else can do it doesn’t affect what you can do.
Abortion: No one is forced to have an abortion.
Marriage: No one is forced to marry.
The only time “someone gets their way” is when they directly prohibit or otherwise hinder the actions or freedoms of someone else with their power.”
colin (82d87d) — 7/10/2005 @ 8:43 pmNo, but about a million a year are forced to be aborted, often without their express written consent.
Xrlq (158f18) — 7/10/2005 @ 9:31 pmWe should remember where the whole Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame story started:
* * *
“Not only did Ms. Plame dismiss one of the key pieces of intelligence regarding Iraq potentially creating the Arab bomb – she successfuly recommended her gadfly husband to be the sole investigator to go check out the lead! How many millions of dollars go to the CIA for intelligence gathering each year? And yet the only person we have to send to Niger to see if Saddam is building a nuke is … the house husband of an agent at Langley?”
“What’s next? Will Valerie Plame send the family golden retriever to look for missle silos in North Korea?”
“This is the real story that the mainstream press won’t touch with a ten foot pole. What heads should roll at Langley for entrusting our national security to the whims of the Wilson-Plame family travelogue?”
* * *
Unbelievable. Shameful. Typical Dem crap – putting politics above national security – and then lying about it when they get busted.
Fire Valerie Plame now. She’s a very real risk to our national security.
-nikita demosthenes
nikita demosthenes (6aa116) — 7/10/2005 @ 9:43 pmThe only reason the original “advise and consent” clause was put in place was to prevent Bush from appointing Jenna and Barbara Bush, or appointing Jeb and Neil Bush. Or in the case of a 3-way vacancy, appointing this mother, Jenna, AND Jeb Bush. Although I have concerns, I have no objection to President Bush doing whatever the fuck he wants.
Give me a break. If you or the Democrats want your guys appointed to the Supreme Court, go out and win elections yourself. It is as simple as that.
Shredstar (91b3b2) — 7/10/2005 @ 10:14 pm“What heads should roll at Langley for entrusting our national security to the whims of the Wilson-Plame family travelogue?”
The funny thing is it turned out that they were right, and the rolling heads wrong.
actus (54a28a) — 7/10/2005 @ 10:16 pmOh sure – Saddam Hussein didn’t have any interest at all in WMD, reinstating WMD, or obtaining the necessary incredients for WMD, now did he, then or in the future.
Boman (e7b7c1) — 7/11/2005 @ 8:44 amI don’t follow the matter. But a few years ago some of the federal judges in the beloved 9th circuit were sitting on appeals for months or years.
Thus they could stop a case if it was clear that the conservative side would prevail.
The L.A. Times, hardly a friend of conservatives, even ran a few articles about it.
Anyone familiar with this tactic? What is the legal route when a court simply will not act?
KenS (012be0) — 7/11/2005 @ 12:46 pmJudicial Filibuster
This is a awfully funny:
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 gr…
Mossback Culture (034170) — 7/11/2005 @ 3:20 pm“Oh sure – Saddam Hussein didn’t have any interest at all in WMD, reinstating WMD, or obtaining the necessary incredients for WMD, now did he, then or in the future. ”
Not as disclaimed by the gadfly husband, no. But we’re sure making a good CIA when we fire the people who are right, and promote the ones who say okley dokley.
actus (54a28a) — 7/11/2005 @ 6:10 pmThose who bothered to read the decision in Bush v. Gore already know that the main point of the case, and the Bush victory itself, was won by a 7 to 2 margin.
Michael Gersh (d6eaf0) — 7/11/2005 @ 7:24 pmI don’t know if that’s a shot at me, but I read the case. Stopping the counting was the more controversial part of the decision, and that was 5-4.
In my opinion, that part of the decision was debatable. The equal protection part (which, as you correctly say, was 7-2) wasn’t. That was an easy, easy call.
Patterico (756436) — 7/11/2005 @ 7:40 pm“okley, dokley”?
Boman (291418) — 7/12/2005 @ 8:49 am“In my opinion, that part of the decision was debatable. The equal protection part (which, as you correctly say, was 7-2) wasn’t. That was an easy, easy call.”
Like they told us:
“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities. The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections”
actus (cd484e) — 7/12/2005 @ 1:31 pm[…] Patterico has an excellent idea to protect the rights of the minority party from being trampled by a bare majority. 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. […]
Hoystory » Blog Archive » A brilliant idea (322185) — 2/20/2006 @ 12:11 am