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
Wickard v, Filburn
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=317&page=111
Concerning the mention of Ayn Rand and the various mentions of Libertarians, I am reminded of the NYT’s obituary of Ms. Rand, to wit:
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/07/obituaries/07randobit.html
For present purposes, this is my favorite excerpt:
“Miss Rand spurned the libertarians as a ‘random collection of emotional hippies-of-the-right who seek to play at politics without philosophy,’ as she put it in a letter to the editor of The New York Times in 1976. . . .
“At the same time, Miss Rand declared that she was ‘profoundly opposed’ to Ronald Reagan and his Presidential ambitions. ‘Since he denies the right to abortion, he cannot be a defender of any rights,’ she wrote. ‘Since he has no program and no ideology to offer, his likeliest motive for entering the Presidential race is power lust.”’
Wonder what Ms. Rand would think of Bishop Romney?
Michael Murry — “Whenever I hear of “constitutional originalism” I think of “the literal interpretation of the Bible[.]'”
***
BTW, I also firmly believe that inerrancy of the Bible and its “literal interpretation” corollary are but political doctrines promulgated by those in charge (or their lackeys) in order to remain in charge.
Swarthmore,
You are right that the health care law is not junk. It is not single payer, but it is a good start. I do not believe that we will get to single payer via a one time program. I think we will get there incrementally, like Canada.
That Commerce Clause stands right up there with Sinter Klaus.
Originalists. No serious student of law can take their analysis of Commerce Clause seriously. Wickard v. Filburn correctly performed the causal analysis on how home grown wheat could in aggregate impact interstate commerce in wheat thus thwarting the legislative intent behind the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to stabilize wheat prices. The Court then, rightfully realizing that breadth of the Commerce Clause, just as rightfully put the job of placing restrictions on the Commerce Clause in the hands of the Legislature. Has the Commerce Clause been applied in an overreaching manner from time to time? Yes. Just as it is being applied in an overreaching manner with the individual mandate to purchase products from for-profit companies. And then as now, the power to restrain the use of the Commerce Clause and apply a Constitutional and legally sound solution lies with Congress. Congress who is more interested in propping up their lobbyist friends and campaign contributors in the health care insurance industry than actually fixing a problem that plagues our society.
Sorry. No sale.
bhoyo,
I must admit that you certainly aspire high trying to “Buckley” the issue, in other words using rhetorical flourish to hide the lack of logical foundation to your bald assertions. Unfortunately, he had a better vocabulary and sentence structure. I’d say a C+ for trying and an F for argumentation. An A+ for vacuous pedantry.
Accompanying the Progressive Courts decisions was the beginning of the new age development of agency and agency rules. The full impact of Agency Governance is never fully discussed and a topic that needs to be with the topic of liberal court findings.
Now The question arisises where di the Court get the power to do that? If I remember correctly all three brances receive their power from the Constitution. The Court not unlike the Congress has prescribed limits. The Constitutional will of the people is in the document, and the myriad of quotes from Mrtashall to Hamliton, to Madison all agree the will of the people is superior to the branches they created.
This is our system, organic law, trumps derivative law.
Hi,
Well I returned and read the posts here. Again as one previous poster offered so few actually get the exposure to the Court, even thru C-Span. fewer less have a workinh knowledeg of the courts unique role in our system.
One poster did offer a tortured expanantion as to why wickard v filburn was a rational use of the Courts Judicial review function. After the case it can adequately stated that the Commerce Cluase allowed Congress to, the court stating that in the aggreagte there existed a reaaon to regulate a grower like Rosco Filburn who was not in Interstate commerce to burn his wheat and pay a fine. No serious student of the Founding could accept this under even the dormant commerce clause which so dormant it isnt even the text.
In United States v Butler caase reveals a whole new idea of power, in the general welfare cluase gets all now power in the taxing area, not just to support disasters unkown at the time of th taxing itself. I went as far as to repeat the idea in Helvering.
All of this FDr inspired, as he said in the Fireside Chtas’ we need to amend te Constitution, we need to assing judges whop see it as the executive and legisaltive do. FDR believed the Court could change the constittuion, inspite of the Article v provision left there for such reasons.
“The alliance between the dynamists and the fundamentalists is tactical or expedient rather than a matter of fused identities. Corporate entities couldn’t care less if all evangelicals and fundamentalists were to suffer a crisis of faith and to disappear tomorrow; and an even greater indifference would be found among scientists and technologists. Among the dynamists there is a greater affinity with constitutional than with religious fundamentalists. Corporate power has utterly transformed the constitutional system of the Founders without acknowledging the transformation. If the fundamentalists wish to believe that the corporate donors who subsidize conservative legal foundations are as fervent as they are about an original Constitution, then corporate types are more than ready to indulge the make-believe. Corporate power is more than eager to tolerate the idiosyncrasies of constitutional fundamentalists; it needs a stable legal framework, and for most of two centuries corporate operatives have successfully cultivated accommodating judges and eager lawyers. As long as the courts are prepared to step in when the federal government tries to flex its regulatory powers, corporations will continue to underwrite the Federalist Society” [emphasis added]. Sheldon Wolin, Democracy, Inc.
The accommodating judges and eager lawyers have two tasks before them: (1) insure the federal government’s legal power to compel the subsidy of corporate profits by powerless customer/citizens while (2) denying the power of government to regulate corporate activities in the interest of otherwise powerless customer/citizens. Government exists to subsidize corporate profits and the people exist to serve corporate interests when ordered by corporate government to do so.
Most people that are against the mandate are conservatives, Brooklyn. The progressives that are against it are few and far between. They are a statistical blip. I don’t see the expansion of medicare as a possibility for a very long time. We are more likely to be going in Paul Ryan’s direction than to single payer. While the plan might not provide concierge care, it is not “junk”.
I read Ayn Rand’s novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in high school back in the early 1960s. They reminded me of the old joke about the masochist and the sadist, where the masochist begs: “hurt me!” and the sadist causally replies: ” …. no.” As the joke has played out over recent decades in America, however, it usually involves the Republican sadist saying, “I am going to hurt you badly now,” only to have the Democratic masochist reply, “Well, ok, if you really think that would work out for the best.” I can’t remember now if Ayn Rand thought the losers would put up a better fight than that, but in any event, they haven’t.
Thorstein Veblen, in his classic work of sarcastic sociology, The Theory of the Leisure Class, observed that certain savage communities seemed to have degenerated from a higher barbarism and that “the most notable trait common to members of such communities is a certain amiable inefficiency when confronted with force or fraud.” Certainly in its Bush v Gore and Citizens United decisions, to name only two of the most egregious, the Supreme Court has demonstrated how easily Seizure Class sadists can wield force and fraud to their own corporate advantage, since they have nothing to fear but amiable inefficiency from their intended victims.
Supreme Court’s favorability rating is well-deserved.
these numbers discount 80% of the people who said “supreme what?”
Swarthmore mom,
Surely, however, you do not hold that to be against the individual mandate is proof of being libertarian. Many ARE making that assertion and the last paragraph of my comment was addressed to those.
The self proclaimed libertarians that I have followed on the subject of the individual mandate are conflicted in different ways altogether than liberals such as myself who are opposed to it. On the one hand libertarians are all for private enterprise transforming any human endeavor into a profit making venture. On the other hand, they are against the government telling them what they “have” to do even if they happen to agree with them.
As to the mandate being upheld, I am suggesting the exact same thing above as I did in a previous thread, namely that the Supreme Court finds extremely seductive the individual mandate to give over our scant resources to profligate enterprise in return for junk health insurance that has sky high co-pays and no federal regulation of what few controls managed to make it through the butcher shop we jokingly refer to as our legislative branch of government..
Brooklin Bridge, Libertarians are against the mandate. In any case, you predicted on another thread that the mandate would be upheld. I hope you are right.
Whom?
And this surprises who?
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?
——————————–
And if voted to office it may well be; “corportations are my friend, people!”
Brooklin Bridge,
Exactly.