Argument creep

Due to my philosophical opposition to the entirety of the structure referred to as the US government, I usually don’t keep up with or say much about the latest partisan cockfight between the wings of the party of the ruling class these days. Once in awhile though, their sideline cheerleaders (whether out of ignorance or corruption) will in the process of magnifying difference where there really isn’t much say something that way overshoots what their supposed “point” is, and I will point & laugh. The death over the weekend of Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia & the reaction of republicans to the prospect of  Obama naming his replacement has now provided such an opportunity.

Since this is an election year and republicans would rather have a republican nominate someone, and they currently have the Senate majority, they’re already pledging to block any nominee prior to Obama leaving office. In a column in the Washington Examiner, radio talk show personality Hugh Hewitt included in his endorsement of the blocking the following:

The Supreme Court has inserted itself into every manner of controversy over the past 30 years, from abortion to guns to marriage and now immigration. It has assumed power never intended it by the Framers, but it is what it is and there is no going back. Thus who controls the court controls the meaning of the Constitution.

If there is anything worth fighting for it is the future of the Constitution, and thus Senate Republicans have no choice here.

Think this through here. The Supreme Court picks which cases it reviews, and making a decision after having taken up one, either way, is to “insert” themselves into the issue. Thus, the only way to truly not insert into an issue is to refuse to rule on it.

This isn’t an argument for waiting until the next president is sworn in to fill a vacant Supreme Court spot, it’s an argument that the Supreme Court should not exist. Hewitt, likely intending to fume about Roe v Wade, Obergefell v Hodges, or Lawrence v Texas, instead indicts Marbury v Madison, even though without the review power the top court would… I dunno, shrug at the participants in each case & then go watch porn until they leave?

Funny thing to say while claiming to rep “the framers” that they made a redundant body for nothing. But then, we are talking about a bunch of rich white guys that thought only white male property owners should vote, that blacks were property, and that the natives were to be massacred for their land, so the real problem is that Hugh or anyone else thinks their views on anything should matter. So if you just want to keep the gays down & the women in the kitchen just admit it & cut the high falutin’ crap gloss on your troglodytism, and I’ll admit up front that you’re an oppressing POS and I reject any authority over any of us for any reason, whether from you or a Dem. It’s simpler that way.


About b-psycho

Left-libertarian blogger & occasional musician.
This entry was posted in law, random shots. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s