Coup

First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
Meanwhile their party’s representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation — and appointments, especially to the courts.
And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party’s majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it — even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.

Until people who vote can be made to understand that the GOP is their enemy, not their friend, we will not have nice things.

5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics [The Atlantic]

Steve in Manhattan
11:00 am • Monday • June 25, 2012
comment »

6 Comments

al2o3cr

3:46 pm • Monday • June 25, 2012

Today’s issue of “GOPers accidentally giving the game away” brought to you by the Pennsylvania GOP majority leader:

“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” Turzai said at this weekend’s Republican State Committee meeting , according to PoliticsPA.com.

I’d love to be disgusted, but anybody who was paying attention knew this already…

Benedick

4:07 pm • Monday • June 25, 2012

@al2o3cr: Isn’t this why they’re going after Holder?

James M. Martin

6:53 pm • Monday • June 25, 2012

No, no, the Five Nutty Professors attempted mightily to explain their decision in Bush v. Gore, but their logic was tortured and flawed, and it amounted to a denial of centuries of precedent, starting with their taking certiorari to begin with, which gave lie to previous refusal to interfere in states’ rights, including elections. I don’t care what you think of Alan Dershowitz, but the guy wrote a spot-on, stringent attack on their reasoning in that case, which was the “Worst Since Dred Scott” until Citizens United came along.

matador1015

8:16 pm • Monday • June 25, 2012

So now we can officially call this blog “Democracy Death Watch.”

Dave H

8:18 pm • Monday • June 25, 2012

In 2008 Candidate Obama talked a lot about “Change we can believe in”. It appears that the real change wasn’t to be in government policies, but in the actual form of government. Now that the supreme five have tossed out the Montana case against Citizens United, government of the few, by the few and for the few appears to be the law of the land in these United States. May God have mercy on our souls, because that’s all we’re left with.

ManchuCandidate

9:05 pm • Monday • June 25, 2012

Could have fought their noms Demrats, instead of pussying out.

Coup

5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics [The Atlantic]

Odorama

My Stinque

Classic Stinque

Search

Wild Stinque

Latest Comments

The Stinque Rimshot Button

StinqueMail

Stinquers