I’m having a bad day, but this brightened it, so I thought I’d share.

DU has a plan, Stan. We’ll pack the court, Jack:

Should we ever get back the Presidency and both houses of Congress, we will be stuck with a right-wing Supreme Court for a generation or more. I can’t see how we can impeach any of the justices simply for ruling on something that helps the right. However, there is one thing that we can do: expand the size of the Supreme Court. Lets say that in five years from now we control both the White House and Congress. This will be the first time since the early 90’s that we would have everything. Now, after eight years of Bush, the SCOTUS has gone from 6-3 in favor of Roe v. Wade, to 5-4 or 6-3 against. The SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, provoking a backlash that elects Democrats. In the aftermath, we say what the Republicans have said about the court: activist judges have taken away the right to choose, therefore, we seek to correct the balance of the court and return it to a principled court. Lets say we expand the SCOTUS from nine judges to eleven or twelve. We could undo the damage that Bush has done within four to eight years.

I don’t think we should bring up any historical references to the country’s reaction the last time that was proposed, do you? But maybe even that would not dim their enthusiasm, because the poster seems aware of the precedent:

5. Thanks!
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Honestly, if I were around when FDR proposed expanding the SCOTUS, I might have opposed it, but in today’s state, there is nothing else that we can do that will prevent the country from being forced againt its will ot (sic) lurch right.

Against its will? Against its will? I guess the commenter believes that we have fallen into a wormhole preventing the electorate from voting its will, which would of course be the only possible way that we possibly end up with a Republican majority in the House and Senate and a Republican President.

Do you think they’ll ever figure out that even if the Supreme Court discovers that the “Right to Privacy” in the Constitution seems to have gone missing from the text, any state in which there is a majority in favor of “Privacy” will still have “Privacy” rights? They seem to believe that the Supreme Court can outlaw abortion.

Of course, I suppose that the type of justices who could find a Right to Privacy in the Constitution could also suddenly discover that the Constitution makes abortion illegal in all 50 states. What the heck, if you’re going to make it up, the only limits are your conscience and your imagination! But appointing originalist and textualist judges such as soon-to-be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Alito (it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it), is exactly the best way to ensure that does not happen.

I doubt they’llever figure out what this debate is really about.

In any case, if a liberal has ever irritated you, tomorrow you will be able to get your revenge by introducing the words “Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Alito” into your conversation. But play fair: do so next to a defibrillator or emergency room. That way you can slip in a few words about compassionate conservatism as you haul the traumatized individual to the emergency room.

Said MaxedOutMama @ 8:52 pm | Permalink   

1. Just don’t forget, its a two way street. Whatever powers Alito gives to republican presidents, he also gives to democratic presidents. So I don’t want to hear you whining if a democrat wins the next election and decides that he or she decides to abridge your rights.

   Comment by CoolAqua — 1/31/2006 @ 12:47 am

---

2. CoolAqua: Whose rights have been abridged by the any Bush anti-terror programs? Can you give ONE example of where civil liberties of ordinary Americans have been abriged by either the Patriot Act or NSA terror monitoring?

   Nope!

   Oh well, better come up with some new scare rhetoric.

   As for this “right wing” court. PLEASE!

   If the current court is right wing then I am the Easter Bunny.

   Let’s make it a right wing court and here is how:

   Go back and rehear both the Ginsburg and Breyer SCOTUS nominations using the standard that Democrats employed against Alito.

   Vote not on qualifications, but political considerations. Both Breyer and Alito would be TOAST!

   Are you aware that Ginsburg replaced Justice White, who was a fairly solid conservative vote on the court?

   Well heck, there’s another reason to give Ginsburg the heave ho. She shifted the balance of the court… TO THE LEFT!

   http://www.reason.com/hod/db011906.shtml

   Comment by Mike's America — 1/31/2006 @ 9:38 am

---

3. Cool Aqua,
   Thanks for demonstrating my point. The reason why I want Alito in is because he does believe the words in the Constitution mean something. In other words, Alito is not the kind of justice who will “give” any President something, unless it is specified as the President’s possession in the Constitution.

   Overall that’s the only safety we can have.

   Comment by MaxedOutMama — 1/31/2006 @ 1:32 pm

---

4. A Comment For Those on The Left Who Cry in their Perrier On This Day of Celebration by those of Us on, in and most importantly, OF the RIGHT!!!

   Comment by Kender — 1/31/2006 @ 7:45 pm

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website