Warner Todd Huston
Congress? Who needs 'em? Let Obama pack the Supreme Court
By Warner Todd Huston
The Philadelphia Inquirer published a reader feedback opinion editorial from reader Stan Isaacs that is as outlandish as it is indicative of the disregard for the American process that liberals all too often exhibit. It is proof once again that tradition, law, and any effort at legitimacy is wholly outside a liberal's field of interest. Winning is all they care about, voters opinions and the rule of law be damned.
What sparked Mr. Isaacs' interest is when he somehow stumbled upon the fact that the number of U.S. Supreme Court Justices is not set in stone in the Constitution. We now have nine justices but in the past have had fewer. What intrigued him is that the number of justices fluctuated because of politics. "Political issues accounted for the changes," Isaacs gleefully reported.
In keeping with these "political issues," Mr. Isaacs lit upon the ideal way to help Obama finally push his left-wing agenda. He advised President Obama to add three new justices to the SCOTUS, justices that will mindlessly adhere to the grand vision of the age of Obama and will rule accordingly. This is necessary, Isaacs thinks, because the court has proven an impediment to Obama's grand socialist design. Worse, Congress has balked at Obama's wholesale destruction of America and has resisted his attempts to turn America into a weaker, less free version of Europe. Issacs, you see, demands a recount.
Sadly, Isaacs doesn't seem to have the first clue why Obama's re-design of the United States hasn't already barreled ahead unhindered. Worse, he doesn't seem to care.
Now this Isaacs fellow is not a consequential figure. He seems to be interested mostly in the prosaic world of sports and even at that he wrote less than 50 articles in all of 2009, most of them about sports. So we most certainly cannot point to this man as a Constitutional scholar, an expert on history, or a knowledgeable source on politics. But, his very pedestrian status easily qualifies him as a typical liberal — uninformed, yet oh, so self-assured. He is, therefore, worthy as a source on that level.
After a short history lesson on the history of the SCOTUS, Isaacs delivers his pronouncement that Obama should pack the court with compliant yes men. After rehashing FDR's mistakes in trying to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, Isaacs says that Obama could easily avoid FDR's mistakes.
And proving his political ignorance, Isaacs misses the elephant in his own rhetorical room. Congress isn't helping ram Obamaism upon the nation because Congress itself is feeling the heat from the voters who don't want Obama's complete makeover of the United States to succeed.
If Congressional Democrats were in such a position to allow Obama to pack the court, Obama wouldn't need to pack the court because he'd have the political support to push his agenda through to fruition! The reason many of Obama's most cherished socialist plans are stalled in Congress is not because Republicans are saying no, it's not because of that mean ol' Supreme court, it's because not enough Democrats are standing behind the president's plans.
Apparently Isaacs is unaware that the Democrat Party has majorities in both houses of Congress and, if they were completely consolidated, could do anything they wanted to do. But that is just it; they aren't completely consolidated. And why is that? Because a large number of them come from conservative leaning districts where voters are unappreciative of Obama's Euroesque plans. These politicians are, therefore, obligated to vote against Obama's agenda because their voters back home insist they do so. That's the "representative" part of our representative democracy.
Now, let's take a moment to realize exactly what this Isaacs fellow is advocating. Like most fascist leftists, Isaacs is demanding that moderate Democrats from conservative districts ignore their voters and side with people that those voters dislike. Isaacs is saying the voter's will doesn't matter.
Then he is suggesting that we turn the courts into a political arm instead of a judicial arm. He is saying that the law should be nothing but an extension of presidential power, wholly owned and directed by the executive. So, why have a court at all in this case, Mr. Isaacs? In fact, why have a legislature? If Isaacs' idea prevails we will have the United States of Obama where all "57 states" will be under the thumb of Barack the Red, supreme ruler of all he surveys.
Now, Mr. Isaacs may like this idea. He may have no problem with a supreme ruler sitting benevolently in Washington D.C. As for the rest of us, I think we like our democratic republic. I think we like having a judiciary that isn't told what to think by an all-powerful leader. I think we like having a body that legislates, one that acts the executive, and one for jurisprudence. We like our Constitution and our rule of law.
Sadly, Mr. Isaacs' hatred of our very American system makes him a typical liberal. But it also makes him very shortsighted. One wonders, after all, what this misinformed man would be say if a Republican had advised one of his presidents to act in such a haughty, self-indulgent, and dictatorial manner? One guesses that such as Mr. Isaacs would be none too happy, eh? Apoplectic might be the word. I guess the Biblical of "do unto others" doesn't resonate with this one.
Finally, I have a bit of advice for Mr. Isaacs. If Isaacs still persists in this delusional thinking, perhaps he might see his way clear to move to Venezuela, or Cuba where the system he dreams of currently exists. Of course, we certainly wouldn't miss his kind should he avail himself of his rights to find a country more in keeping with his tyrannical ideas but he might at last feel at home.
© Warner Todd Huston
March 2, 2010
The Philadelphia Inquirer published a reader feedback opinion editorial from reader Stan Isaacs that is as outlandish as it is indicative of the disregard for the American process that liberals all too often exhibit. It is proof once again that tradition, law, and any effort at legitimacy is wholly outside a liberal's field of interest. Winning is all they care about, voters opinions and the rule of law be damned.
What sparked Mr. Isaacs' interest is when he somehow stumbled upon the fact that the number of U.S. Supreme Court Justices is not set in stone in the Constitution. We now have nine justices but in the past have had fewer. What intrigued him is that the number of justices fluctuated because of politics. "Political issues accounted for the changes," Isaacs gleefully reported.
In keeping with these "political issues," Mr. Isaacs lit upon the ideal way to help Obama finally push his left-wing agenda. He advised President Obama to add three new justices to the SCOTUS, justices that will mindlessly adhere to the grand vision of the age of Obama and will rule accordingly. This is necessary, Isaacs thinks, because the court has proven an impediment to Obama's grand socialist design. Worse, Congress has balked at Obama's wholesale destruction of America and has resisted his attempts to turn America into a weaker, less free version of Europe. Issacs, you see, demands a recount.
Sadly, Isaacs doesn't seem to have the first clue why Obama's re-design of the United States hasn't already barreled ahead unhindered. Worse, he doesn't seem to care.
Now this Isaacs fellow is not a consequential figure. He seems to be interested mostly in the prosaic world of sports and even at that he wrote less than 50 articles in all of 2009, most of them about sports. So we most certainly cannot point to this man as a Constitutional scholar, an expert on history, or a knowledgeable source on politics. But, his very pedestrian status easily qualifies him as a typical liberal — uninformed, yet oh, so self-assured. He is, therefore, worthy as a source on that level.
After a short history lesson on the history of the SCOTUS, Isaacs delivers his pronouncement that Obama should pack the court with compliant yes men. After rehashing FDR's mistakes in trying to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, Isaacs says that Obama could easily avoid FDR's mistakes.
-
Obama can give himself a fighting chance by changing the rules of the game, just as they were changed for other presidents in the 1800s. He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.
It would be a tumultuous fight, but it would be for a change we could believe in.
And proving his political ignorance, Isaacs misses the elephant in his own rhetorical room. Congress isn't helping ram Obamaism upon the nation because Congress itself is feeling the heat from the voters who don't want Obama's complete makeover of the United States to succeed.
If Congressional Democrats were in such a position to allow Obama to pack the court, Obama wouldn't need to pack the court because he'd have the political support to push his agenda through to fruition! The reason many of Obama's most cherished socialist plans are stalled in Congress is not because Republicans are saying no, it's not because of that mean ol' Supreme court, it's because not enough Democrats are standing behind the president's plans.
Apparently Isaacs is unaware that the Democrat Party has majorities in both houses of Congress and, if they were completely consolidated, could do anything they wanted to do. But that is just it; they aren't completely consolidated. And why is that? Because a large number of them come from conservative leaning districts where voters are unappreciative of Obama's Euroesque plans. These politicians are, therefore, obligated to vote against Obama's agenda because their voters back home insist they do so. That's the "representative" part of our representative democracy.
Now, let's take a moment to realize exactly what this Isaacs fellow is advocating. Like most fascist leftists, Isaacs is demanding that moderate Democrats from conservative districts ignore their voters and side with people that those voters dislike. Isaacs is saying the voter's will doesn't matter.
Then he is suggesting that we turn the courts into a political arm instead of a judicial arm. He is saying that the law should be nothing but an extension of presidential power, wholly owned and directed by the executive. So, why have a court at all in this case, Mr. Isaacs? In fact, why have a legislature? If Isaacs' idea prevails we will have the United States of Obama where all "57 states" will be under the thumb of Barack the Red, supreme ruler of all he surveys.
Now, Mr. Isaacs may like this idea. He may have no problem with a supreme ruler sitting benevolently in Washington D.C. As for the rest of us, I think we like our democratic republic. I think we like having a judiciary that isn't told what to think by an all-powerful leader. I think we like having a body that legislates, one that acts the executive, and one for jurisprudence. We like our Constitution and our rule of law.
Sadly, Mr. Isaacs' hatred of our very American system makes him a typical liberal. But it also makes him very shortsighted. One wonders, after all, what this misinformed man would be say if a Republican had advised one of his presidents to act in such a haughty, self-indulgent, and dictatorial manner? One guesses that such as Mr. Isaacs would be none too happy, eh? Apoplectic might be the word. I guess the Biblical of "do unto others" doesn't resonate with this one.
Finally, I have a bit of advice for Mr. Isaacs. If Isaacs still persists in this delusional thinking, perhaps he might see his way clear to move to Venezuela, or Cuba where the system he dreams of currently exists. Of course, we certainly wouldn't miss his kind should he avail himself of his rights to find a country more in keeping with his tyrannical ideas but he might at last feel at home.
© Warner Todd Huston
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
