It appears that Congress is not the only branch with falling poll numbers. According to Pew Research Center, the Supreme Court now is viewed favorable by just roughly 50 percent of the public.
Only fifty-two percent of Americans hold a favorable view of the Supreme Court today. Notably, “[t]here are virtually no partisan differences in views of the Supreme Court: 56% of Republicans, and 52% of both Democrats and independents rate the Supreme Court favorably.” Of course, popularity is not a requirement for the Court, which was given jurists with life tenure to protect it from public opinion. The Court has often been the most unpopular when it has been the most right, such as on desegregation.
Yet, it is striking to see how all three branches remain unpopular with most Americans. Once again, it is striking how the public holds its government in such low regard. Yet, citizens feel incapable to forcing change due to the monopoly of power exercised by the two parties. I have previously written how we need to address this crisis with fundamental changes in our system. The Framers gave us the tools to force such changes, including reforming the Supreme Court. I have previously called for the Court to be expanded to 19 members. However, there are other proposals for reform, but none are being considered in a political system locked down by two parties.
Source: Pew
One of the biggest cons out there is to make people think the Health Care bill must be good because the Supreme Court maydeny the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
Until July we won’t know which way the Supreme Court will go, but make no mistake; much as they may salivate at the prospect of causing a political set back to Obama, they salivate just as much, and possibly more, at the prospect of coercive relationships between private citizens and private profit driven enterprise. They are clearly aware of the implications this has for setting up the same model with Social Security and Medicare. Having an authoritarian government force people to give money to private enterprise and to have private enterprise control the process as well as the amount is the very definition of fascism.
That this particular Supreme Court can lend an air of constitutionality to it is far more seductive to the justices than most people realize, particularly those who define anyone who disagrees with them as “libertarians”. People who argue against the individual mandate in this case are NOT libertarians. They are arguing that they WANT government control of Health Care (not a typical libertarian position) and not control by private — profit driven — corporations.
Somewhere up above there was a tv screen with a caption that says that Romney says that “corportations are people my friend.” My machine wont open that tv screen but Romney was not dumb enough to say that was he?
We have dogs of all political stripe in our dog pack and yet not one says he will vote for Romney. Yellow Dog, one of our dogs, says: “Four legs good, two legs baaaaaad.” It is all because of the dog on the dog crate on the roof of the car for the interstate travel thing.
Ever notice that Scalia will usually revert to his interpretation of the original intent of the Framers of the original Constitution. But never gives mention, deference or anything but contempt for the intent of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Democracy Reborn, is a book by Garrett Epps, a law professor and historian about the passage of the 14th Amendment and the treatment it received by the neo rebs in cases like Plessy v. Ferguson.
This dog votes Democrat. How you might ask if I am a dog. Its easy. I am a guide dog for my blind pal. They still have voting machines with levers in this state. I pulll the lever. I get the bisquit. The manner in which it is early and often must go unrecorded here.
Oro Lee,
You are on fire today. The majority on the Supreme Court are just using the originalism as an excuse to curry favor with their political bosses.
And the people became awakened, and there was Great wailing and knashing of teeth!
“When we say that some belief or object is archaic, we are distinguishing it from a “relic” or artifact from the past that may be preserved but is no longer in common use. An archaic belief is one that flourished in the past and carries identifiable marks of that past, but unlike a relic, it is operative, employed rather than simply preserved. Like a relic, an archaism requires care, preservation, if it is not to decay. Unlike scientific truths, which are cumulative and frequently superseded, archaisms are fixed, impervious to evidence. What is the doctrine of “the framers’ original intent” and “constitutional originalism” but a variant of creationism and the denial of historical evolution? [emphasis added]” — Sheldon Wolin, Democracy, Inc.
Whenever I hear of “constitutional originalism” I think of “the literal interpretation of the Bible,” which sounds oxymoronic to me, since if we take something literally, we do not interpret it, and if we interpret something, we do not take it literally. Justice Scalia and his whole archaic crowd seem to want it both ways. They want to invoke the “conservative” sanctity of tradition and myth as cover and authority for radically shredding whatever real progress cumulative human experience has achieved in America.
As with our corporate President and Congress, I think little of this Supreme Court and would think even less of it I could.
Just something to ponder,last night on my new medium the radio and on the one year anniversary of the killing of OBL a caller said if Jimmy Carter had been sucessful in trying to free the hostages in IRAN we would be living in a totally different world.Ronald Reagan would not have been elected and this discussion about the SCOTUS would not be taking place.
“BTW, I firmly believe that Originalism is a political doctrine promulgated by those in charge (or their lackeys) in order to remain in charge.”
Oro Lee,
You comment, though only two paragraphs, was a gem in clarifying and disposing of the issue. Perfect!
bhoyo,
By the way, the technique you are using is the “William F. Buckley” technique of…..gasp…sophistry. You spout much, but add little more than overblown verbiage. Buckley, superficial ass that he was, did it better.
No surprise when you have clowns like Fat Tony, Silent Thomas and the corporate owned twins in place of honest jurists.
OT but worth following up on – here is a woman about to get 20 years because she was denied SYG protection in FLA
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/05/why-couldnt-marissa-alexander-stand-her-ground-florida/51775/
by me[n] bought and paid for by such as the Koch Brothers.
I don’t normally make direct repsonses but … Wickard supports my argument. What could easily be perceived as a discrete, local act (especially when the casebook leaves out certain salient facts to the contrary) can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause because of its impact on the “evolving and synergistic nature of the expanding commercial environment” (e.g., farm commodities and federal subsidies). The authority to regulate commerce existed but it was the new application of that authority that was objectionable.
As far as sophistry, if I am guilty it is because of all the Scalia opinions I have read. I don’t think he is all that smart, but in sophistry he knows no peers.
Yeah, what Gene H said!
(I had to study it for a few days before I could endorse it!)
blouise,
bhoyo,
I knew it!! You sly dog, you. I’ve been waiting for ever for someone to call out FDR.
Well if one had read the idea of remolding the Constitution in the FDR offered in everything from the Fire side chats to speeches, and knew what our system is there would be less confusion as to why the whole FDR revival of the Court was so extra constitutional. In the separation of powers idea, to think of a President actually revamping Judicial Review in tha manner he did is a sad testimony to those who know our system.
I showed up for this one for sure lol
I was naive and used to hold the Supreme Court in high regard, as I was taught in American History, until Bush-Gore and then came Citizens United, and so forth. They are just another politicized branch representing the Republican criminal and corrupt corporate state that rules!
orr,
The problem then, as is true today, was the Supremes turgid and anachronistic Articles of Confederation approach of interpreting the Constitution.
Thank you for providing a contemporary defintion of sophistry.
By the way, seeing interstate became intrastate, and Wickard actually blew even that idea out of the water, do you have any ideas to offer that have substance ??
Oro lee, That was great. You made me spit up my iced tea.. lol
Swathmore Mom — “Oro Lee, When I moved to Texas there were quite a few yellow dogs around. They don’t even exist here any more. I don’t know what you call a person that votes republican no matter what.”
Rabid
” I have previously written how we need to address this crisis with fundamental changes in our system.” (JT)
And you must keep on writing about it for we are in some deep doo-doo here and have been for years and years. I’m a believer.
The old FDR “court-packing” canard. The likelihood of such reference is directly proportional to the length of the discussion concerning the Supreme Court’s decisions.
If the Great Depression proved anything beyond dispute, it was that “interstate commerce” — flowing from one state to another — had evolved into “national commerce” — flowing from any one and all of the states into all of the other states — as well as transnational commerce.
The problems posed by the evolving and synergistic nature of the expanding commercial environment did not call for new constitutional powers but an expansion of the use of existing powers to deal with exigent circumstances which the Founders could not have fathomed. The court confused application with authority.
The problem then, as is true today, was the Supremes turgid and anachronistic Articles of Confederation approach of interpreting the Constitution.
bhoyo,
I knew it!! You sly dog, you. I’ve been waiting for ever for someone to call out FDR.