Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't want a Supreme Court that's "deferent" to the executive branch, thankyouverymuch.  The whole point of the checks-and-balances system is not to be deferent.

If you wanted checks and balances, you wouldn't have system of political patronage underpinning the appointments system. The USSC are political appointments and are chosen for ideological conformity. Only the democrats have been dumb enough to try to be bipartizan, the rethugs understand the game and play to win.


keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 08:19:43 AM EST
Of course they are political appointments (though not patronage ones). The lifetime thing means you occasionally end up with something you weren't planning on, but that's by mistake (e.g. Bush sr.'s appointment of David Souter, and while Anthony Kennedy is pretty conservative, he isn't full on wingnut) I wouldn't say that the Dems have been particularly bipartisan in that regard - Ginsburg and Breyer were meant to be on the liberal wing of the court, and they are.
by MarekNYC on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sort of liberal, in a mainstream sort of way,

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Sat Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series