Thursday, May 9, 2019

Hate Mail - On The House Voting To Confirm Members Of The Supreme Court

I disagree.  Making the confirmation of Supreme Court "Justices" dependent on confirmation by the whole Congress, the House as well as the Senate, will not cost us more than just having it in the Senate which has proven to be a big part of the present disaster. There is more of a chance that Republicans will not dominate both houses with a Republican president inclined to put fascists on the court than that there will be a Republican Senate at that time.  

Under both most of the George W. Bush regime except for the last two years and the first two years of the Trump regime, it wouldn't have made a difference.  If one of the non-fascists on the Court should die before Trump is out of office, if the House had to approve of his nominee, he could not get through another Federalist fascist.   If I were in charge of the House or even the Judiciary Committee in the House and they needed the confirmation of the House, I'd say Trump no Trump nominee gets through as a balance to McConnell's and the Senate fascist's nullification of Barack Obama's presidency.  

If the Supreme Court can nullify the duly adopted and signed laws passed by the House by a 5-4 vote, or anything less than a unanimous decision, it is ridiculous to not require the House to confirm Supreme Court nominations.  For five "justices" to be able to overturn the decision of the most democratically constituted part of the government - who are often entirely more equipped to understand the issues relevant to the laws they make than any of the frequently and uniformly math and science ignorant ivy-towered "justices" -  is not only morally outrageous that they can't confirm them, it is profoundly and dangerously anti-democratic. 

If the Constitution isn't amended to give the House an equal say in the matter, I think requiring a unanimous vote of the Court to overturn Congressionally adopted laws should be adopted.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says 5 Supreme Court members get to overturn such laws adopted under the explicit methods set out in the Constitution.  Those demigods in black robes need to be taken down a few pegs. 

There was nothing wise about the choice of the fabled founders in giving that power to the Senate, who they had no intention of ever being elected but appointed, it was part of their foolishness in thinking that such chosen Senators would be wiser and of better moral discernment than the members of the house who were popularly elected.  The putrescent history of the Senate as well as the Supreme Court proves that was never true. 

I would contrast the behavior of the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, yesterday, with that of Senate Judiciary Committees even under Democratic control.  Especially emetic in memory was that body under the leadership of Joe Biden with its decorous, hypocritical pretensions of gentlemanly comity covering up their cave-ins to the Republican president as he allowed his good friends, the lying, vicious Republicans to smear Anita Hill like the Republican fascists smeared Dr. Blasey-Ford last year.  Then there was the pose of such accommodation as they got off of Jeff Flake as the best they could get last year.  In retrospect, they should have railed against that as the fraud it was instead of accepting it as "fair".  Senators strike me as being, in many cases, more likely to cave to those kinds of pressures than House members who are closer to their constituents.  There is no case that that regime was superior to the one on display in the House, yesterday. 

No comments:

Post a Comment