Times Columnist Threatens Supreme Court With Stacking

Change font size:  A |  A

Liberals love to decry the Bush administration's alleged undermining of the rule of law. The lead editorial in today's New York Times, for example, demands Congress "not capitulate in the White House’s attempt to rob it of its constitutional powers."

But ironically, just below the editorial appears a column by one Jean Edward Smith brazenly entitled "Stacking the Court." Far from condemning the possibility, the author, a Marshall University professor, endorses the prospect as a means of coercing the Supreme Court into issuing rulings more to his, and his fellow liberals', liking.

Threatens Smith, with all the subtlety of a mobster telling a mark he'd hate to see anything happen to his kids:

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant.

How's that for undermining the rule of law? And since when are "popular standards" the measure by which the Supreme Court is to make its judgements?

Imagine the uncontrollable fury of the New York Times itself if ever a conservative had made the identical proposal during a Dem administration.

Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net