Replies

I'd rather believe the seven are self-serving sellouts rather than being so dumb as to have ANY pretensions about the Democrats caring about "comity" or some other such BS.

They are. At least four of them think the current leftist drift of the Supreme Court is just dandy. This agreement gives them cover to vote against the President--"I can't break my agreement, can I? The President didn't consult us so of course the dems think it's extraordiary."

As to McCain, who really knows what goes on in that twisted little mind behind the REDRUM grin--it has something to do with revenge and vindication and being president, but how he works that out and rationalizes it is beyond me.

As to DeWine and Graham, I have no idea what they were thinking. At least publically, they have stood for a more conservative Court. Why they acted to make that much less likely is beyond me. McCain may have promised Graham the VP spot on a McCain ticket, for whatever that's worth in today's dollars. Maybe DeWine and Graham are just stupid. I don't know.

They may be just dumb - or somehow they were sweet-talked, and need to learn the hard way how the Dems stab in the back.

The whole course of the courts is truly alarming. (I was thinking of starting a vanity thread, but I'd rather stay on-topic here.) On issues like abortion on demand and "gay marriage," it seems like the strategy is to find ANY possible way to justify a desired result and then hope the public "catches up" eventually. Take the case about ten days ago striking down a state constitutional amendment banning "gay marriage." The judge essentially said the constitutional amendment denies "due process" or "equal protection" (I don't remember all the details; it's so convoluted anyway) because the amendment makes it harder for some groups to change the law. DUH! That's what a constitutional amendment is for! Using that logic, state constitutional amendments creating a state income tax would be unconstitutional because they make it harder for some groups (taxpayers) to make legislative changes.

But the law would never be applied that way. And homosexuals have never been declared a class requiring special protection under federal law, like races or religions.

So what we have is judges just coming up with any intellectual BS to get the results they want. So the courts' reasoning is just window-dressing. Why bother trying to even come up with a coherent argument?

I think the idea, again, is to do or say ANYTHING and in the meantime "educate" (indoctrinate) the young so that in time everyone will agree and the logic won't matter.

But I think on unrestricted abortion, and certainly gay marriage, this tactic seems to have had the opposite effect. It mobilizes opponents, exacerbates the controversy because the PEOPLE have not resolved this through the legislative process, and erodes respect for the courts. Court grabs at legislative power don't throw water on the fire; they throw gasoline instead. I hate the idea of "enshrining" the idea of judicial activism in the law by implicitly recognizing it. but the time may have come. Mark Levin is probably right. Term limits for federal judges, and a mechanism to "override" a Supreme Court decision by the Congress, are imperfect solutions, but solutions nonetheless, to the problem. if they want to act like legislators, then treat them that way. People worry about the "tyranny of the majority." But I'd rather trust both houses of Congress sent there by the American people than 5 of 9 supreme court justices ultimately picked, it now seems, by a backroom deal among 14 senators.