Good piece by David Limbaugh responding to the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, who, in arguing (however peripherally) for strict proportional representation, displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government is supposed to function, and betrays a cynical (and thoroughly partisan) view of the courts that Limbaugh is correct to seize upon:
[…] E. J. Dionne Jr. asked in a recent column, “Should a temporary majority of 50.7 percent have control over the entire United States government? Should 49.3 percent of Americans have no influence over the nation’s trajectory for the next generation? We are deciding whether one ideological orientation will hold sway over all three branches of government. Today’s Republican majority, based on Bush’s 50.7 percent of the vote in 2004, has no inherent right to exercise near-total control over that ‘most powerful branch.’”
I have written before that liberals seem to be arguing that the president should effectively compromise his judicial appointment power by choosing not just conservative judges, but liberal ones in proportion to the percentage of popular votes John Kerry received.
That sounds absurd on its face, but that’s clearly the message Democrats were sending when reminding us that the popular vote was close so the president has no mandate to “stack the courts” with his preferred conservative nominees.
Now E.J. has come along and validated my conclusion. And as I read it, I’m still incredulous that someone of his supposed stature could put this in print. Our Constitution doesn’t require the chief executive to dilute his agenda commensurate with the votes his opponent received. It’s up to elected members of the opposition party to advocate their party’s agenda.
The answers to E.J.’s questions are these: No, a relatively narrow majority (nor an overwhelming majority, for that matter) does not have an inherent right to exercise near-total control over the “entire U.S. government” or “that ‘most powerful branch.’” It is entitled to precisely that amount of influence it is able to muster under the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the president is entitled to appoint judges, and the Senate has the advice and consent power.
Senators of the majority party are not required to push their agenda with only 50.7 percent intensity. It’s an adversary system—they may promote their views with 100 percent of their energy, and it is up to the minority party to advocate their dissenting views.
Surely Dionne knows this. But for all his seeming concern over the separation of powers, does he understand that an independent, non-political judiciary is indispensable to it? (It is not supposed to be an ideological check on the executive and legislative branches, but a systemic check against constitutional abuses inflicted by those other two branches.)
Unfortunately, too many liberals (and to be fair, many self-identified conservatives, as well) look at the judicial branch as some sort of ideological swing vote (or, in the case of Democrats, a desperately-wielded superlegislative trump card)—when in fact the Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution impartially and strictly, and then apply that interpretation to resolving legal questions and disputes. What it shouldn’t do is begin finessing Constitutional text in order to show favor to a particular party’s ideological-driven legislative impulses, or to retain the status quo for sake of political expediency at the expense of a coherent judicial philosophy.
****
not really related, but worth mentioning nevertheless: I think we can all agree that a High Court ruling that promises to outlaw Chris Berman’s mannered enthusiasm and irritatingly hokey homerun calls during future MLB Home Run Derby competitions will of course be exempt from close Constitutional scrutiny…
Nuff said.
The Republicans had their time, years and years of it, as a minority party.
I really don’t recall this kind of argument at all concerning Dem Presidents having to proportionately appoint judges.
I’m still incredulous
Yes, that about sums up my reactions, too.
Back! Back! Back! Back! Back! [thud]
There, now that’s better.
How does Dionne feed himself? Is there like an aide who supplies the IQ necessary to operate a fork?
That “living Constitution” idea again….that the words in that document can be interpreted based on the interpreter and present-day society…I hope that future SCJs are able to stick to their job rather than re-write the law as they see fit.
“Back back back back back…oh MY! That one landed in Dearborn…!”
God. Hand me a bat.
That Abreu kid is something else, though, ain’t he?
It’s too bad that Castro-fellater Hugo Chavez will probably try to attach himself to this, though.
One of these days the all-Star game will be “Kick Ass Players The Astros Let Go vs. Everyone Else.”
I’m starting a petition for a Constitutional amendment requiring Bud Selig to visit the Visible Changes hair salon at his local mall.
No sympathy here, pal. I’m an Oriole fan. And for about a decade and a half, all the O’s did was give away future all-stars (Harnisch, Schilling, Arthur Rhodes, Steve Finley…).
But hey, we did get Glenn Davis.
Baseball again. Sheesh.
On that judicial stuff, though—very well said, Jeff. If only this whole debate could be correctly defined as being a choice between a court that provides a check upon the potential excesses of the other two branches of government, versus a super-legislature, whose pronouncements are “almost as if God Himself has spoken” (N. Pelosi).
And this 50.7% shit sure wasn’t an issue during the ~45% Clinton years, nor any other time in history. Simply the desperation of an increasingly irrelevant minority party.
Didn’t anyone ask Perot who he’d like on the court in 1993? Or did he agree with 19% of Ginsburg’s previous rulings?
Sorry that this is OT. I don’t know how many Don and Mike fans there are out there, but Don’s wife Freda was in a car accident yesterday coming back from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and she died last night at the hospital. Prayers are in order.
Spamword, “hard,” as in, “This is really hard.”
Thanks, Jeff. I was pouting earlier because I had to work and forgot to Tivo the Derby, but not having to listen to Berman yap is a nice silver lining.
Don’t forget Joe Morgan, norb.
But hey—while I’m a little ticked that Beltran left Houston for NY for a few extra bucks, I can’t really begrudge them giving up Jeff Kent. He’s much happier in LA anyway.
In any case, you’d have to be a peculiar type of pessimist to look at the Astros without those all-stars and still have a dim outlook of their season’s prospects. They will return to the playoffs.
I didn’t know Jeff Kent was capable of happiness.
I do not like E.J. Dionne. Never have. I don’t think he cares much. Not that this dissuades me.
They act as though that 50.7% majority is just a whim of fate, as thought it just happened, like the weather.
But it happened because of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their positions.
And the fact that they have been hiding their true positions for so long that they are having trouble articulating another fig leaf, one that resonates with the younger generation. (Somehow, I don’t think that coming out with it and disclosing that their true agenda is “Kill the rich, take all their stuff, and build a glorious workers paradise” is going to get them over that 50% hurdle.)
Someone help me out here. When President George W. Bush’s predecessor came into office with that earthshatteringly huge 43% majority, did anyone tell him he wasn’t entitled to all the rightful prerogatives of the presidency?
As I recall, he not only took advantage of all the rightful ones, he came up with a handful (ahem) of new ones.
OH!
Jeff “24 Karat” Goldstein hits it back, back, back, WAY back, and it is………
GONE!
I missed Abreu’s 24 first rounders because I couldn’t get past Berman’s “introductions”. The man grates on me. I had some ESPN game that featured Berman and the commentary went off within 20 seconds of bootup.
Course, Olberman still wins the award for the biggest post-sports center jackass.
“Big” – too easy- “Keith Olberman is a BIG damn jackass”.
Well, you watch, he’ll go ofer in the actual game.
GO PHILS!
Little known fact: when Glenn Davis retired, he donated his moustache to Jeff Kent.
Izatso? Let’s have a chat about Pete Angelos sometime (Grrrr).
GO NATS!
I don’t want Angelos to die. I just want him to have lots of heart attacks. Cause they hurt.
I often amuse myself by imagining Charlie O. Finley roasting in hell. Yes, Charlie, I’m still pissed about you selling off the 3-time world series winner ‘74 A’s like a string of slaves. Does it HURT, Charlie? Good, you bastard…
Berman’s schtick was funny in 1947 or whenever it was ESPN first came on the air. The backbackback call and the nicknames were clever. It lost its appeal sometime during the Reagan administration. He was just calling it in last night, with the index to a Michigan map as a prop. He’s less of an ass than Tim McCarver, however, who remains the gold standard in baseball morons.
Olbermann is coming back to ESPN to rejoin Dan Patrick – luckily it’s just the radio show.
Quit yer bitchin Orioles fans – MY team hasn’t won a series since 1948. At least I’m not from Chicago.
What is this “baseball” of which you speak? In my universe, the supreme sport which both unites and divides our population is football.
College football.
SEC football.
And them Big Orange Tennessee By God Volunteers.
Turing word “series”.
Heh. Indeed.
Football?
Oh, you mean soccer.
Okay, Mike, this one’s from Iowahawk:
You know why Tennessee fans wear orange?
On Saturday for the game, on Sunday to go huntin’, and for the weekdays to pick up trash on the side of the road.
(I can rib you because my alma mater, Boise State, is blue and…orange.)
My eyes are completely shot thanks to watching one Boise State home game during a bright Saturday afternoon last fall.