Terry, the SCOTUS today is certainly maddening and even more so because the institution seems entirely uninterested in fixing any of the many scandals and failures to recuse (I'm talking to Mrs. Ginny Thomas's wife here, and now, with Justice Alito and the flag of distress). So what does the Constitution provide for corrective measures? If I remember my American History classes, there are two mechanisms. One is for Congress to pass laws that further define the practice and enforcement of Judicial Review. The other is to impeach specific Justices, as needed. And, frankly, this is clearly needed.
The problem is that not only is Congress polarized and fillibusted, but they are this way (at least in part) because of SCOTUS action, including the decision of Citizens' United. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) deserves all of our attention, especially in his work about SCOTUS. His 30-some part series of speeches from the Senate Floor, in aggregate titled "The Scheme," is must-watch TV (go CSPAN!).
Will any real action happen? I guess, in keeping with the TV imagery above, I'll go with the old standby: "Stay Tuned!"
Thanks David. Impeachment is an option but if memory serves, it requires a 2/3 majority in both houses, which is a very heavy lift. As for legislation or judicial review reform, there are some movers and shakers who are eying those measures, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and the aforementioned Dick Durbin. But again, I think partisanship will get in the way, unless, that is, more of the remaining liberal justices commit ethical offenses. Then maybe reluctant Republicans will get on board? Right now, most Republicans see this as a partisan issue because the two biggest offenders are conservatives who were elevated to the high court by Republican presidents.
Right, I know New Yorkers who consider anything north of the Columbia football stadium "upstate." The portions of NYC outside Manhattan are "the boroughs." Everything else is either "Jersey" or "The Hamptons!"
Terry, the SCOTUS today is certainly maddening and even more so because the institution seems entirely uninterested in fixing any of the many scandals and failures to recuse (I'm talking to Mrs. Ginny Thomas's wife here, and now, with Justice Alito and the flag of distress). So what does the Constitution provide for corrective measures? If I remember my American History classes, there are two mechanisms. One is for Congress to pass laws that further define the practice and enforcement of Judicial Review. The other is to impeach specific Justices, as needed. And, frankly, this is clearly needed.
The problem is that not only is Congress polarized and fillibusted, but they are this way (at least in part) because of SCOTUS action, including the decision of Citizens' United. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) deserves all of our attention, especially in his work about SCOTUS. His 30-some part series of speeches from the Senate Floor, in aggregate titled "The Scheme," is must-watch TV (go CSPAN!).
Will any real action happen? I guess, in keeping with the TV imagery above, I'll go with the old standby: "Stay Tuned!"
Thanks David. Impeachment is an option but if memory serves, it requires a 2/3 majority in both houses, which is a very heavy lift. As for legislation or judicial review reform, there are some movers and shakers who are eying those measures, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and the aforementioned Dick Durbin. But again, I think partisanship will get in the way, unless, that is, more of the remaining liberal justices commit ethical offenses. Then maybe reluctant Republicans will get on board? Right now, most Republicans see this as a partisan issue because the two biggest offenders are conservatives who were elevated to the high court by Republican presidents.
Upstate New York = anything north of the George Washington Bridge.
Right, I know New Yorkers who consider anything north of the Columbia football stadium "upstate." The portions of NYC outside Manhattan are "the boroughs." Everything else is either "Jersey" or "The Hamptons!"