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
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
}}}----> The court's
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 06:26 ET by Cool ArrowRepublicans have failed miserably in the past at seating right minded judges on the Court. Sandra Day Ocondor comes to mind.
"Popular" is a euphemism for societal degradation. Take the simplest document and Libs will twist it to mean the opposite.
Ten Commandments? You betcha.
Constitution? Hey, lookee here what Jefferson says in another document. Says here religion is the opiate of the masses. Says here "infringe" means nothing at all. Says here States have no rights.
Hmmm... Malicious intent?. . . Militia's in tents?. . . Militia's intense?. . . All that Old English is so flexible, you know.
"Popular" means "Liberal".
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 06:52 ET by Beowulf"Popular" means "Liberal". It's that simple, at least in their minds. "Majority" doesn't matter. Popular is what they say it is. After all, they always know what's best for the other 95%, don't they? Who cares if that 95% doesn't want what the libs want. They're too stupid to make a decision anyway, so the libs will push their "popular" concensus as what's best for the rest of us...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
SC's Job
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 06:54 ET by PawpawNIsn't it the job of the Supreme Court to interpret law, the Constitution, etc. It is not to be in line with popular values! People actually take writing things like this seriously. Where did this so-called journalist go to school? What party affliation is next to his name? Why does he think the general public needs to hear his view? What is next for the NYT? They had domination in the print and blew it!
Values matter
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 08:25 ET by ThalpyYes, the job description for Supreme Court Justice is clear, unless you view the United States Constitution as an all- inclusive "living", world-wide document. We should not forget that these same mental giants of our press were hoping for a liberal and cultural friendly Pope.
}}}----> Pawpawn
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 08:31 ET by Cool ArrowThat "journalist" never pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor to defend his scribblings.
sacred honor
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 09:52 ET by ThalpySacred honor, or for that matter, most issues of principle seem to be foreign to the talking heads and print journalists. Participatory journalism has replaced objective reporting in the news. It should be no great mystery, but major newspapers and television news divisions are wondering why we are rejecting their inferior product. Imagine that.
}}}----> A Gutenburg Revolution
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 10:48 ET by Cool ArrowAl Gore's invention of the Internet may yet spawn a second renaissance. Just as knowledge was increased and Scripture was opened in local language at the advent of the printing press, we are freed from the obvious steering of the current Church of Humanism.
Aren't the libs very clever
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 07:12 ET by dscottAren't the libs very clever in manipulation? They accuse Roberts and Bush of stacking the court and not listening to the public, yet the libs propose exactly that: to stack the court by adding lib judges until they get a majority and the litmus test for being a SCOTUS judge is to be unflinching to the lib agenda. Another case of Projection.
Once again the libs demonstrate by their cleverness of speech that they are a direct threat to the Republic, they are diametrically opposed to government of the people, for the people and by the people. The ideology of Islamofascism maybe the central theme of the GWOT but liberalism is no less equally an ideology that must be confronted. As each day passes, I am more convinced than ever that were it not for the ownership of guns by the public (80 million), the libs would have tried a coup by now. When a group of people believe truth is whatever they assert until you prove them wrong, such a group is dangerously unpredictable as they can rationalize any act, no matter how reprehensible as for the common good. It is no accident or coincidence that libs soft pedal and blame the victim when it comes to Islamofascist and Eco-terrorists.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
Unfortunately the Democrats
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 08:34 ET by ahusserUnfortunately the Democrats are ruthless and have no scruples. The truth doesn't matter only the ruthless acquisition of power by any means. The republicans (or conservatives if you will) need a little ruthlessness themselves to counter this threat which I believe can consume the Republic.
When it comes to stacking
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 08:29 ET by ahusserWhen it comes to stacking the court no one can come close to the Democrats during the wonderful 60's and 70's and some of the 80's when Earl Warren, Douglas and Thur(nogood) Marshall, and other liberal darlings, ruled the roost.
Professor
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 10:05 ET by iveseenitallThe old coot's a college "professor". I'm shocked.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Threats work both ways
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 10:30 ET by KC MulvilleLet future students take note:
Let politicians take note:
history
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 10:46 ET by iveseenitallCiting FDR's court-packing is too thought provoking. It might cause students to read and think for themselves. Don't you know that teaching that awful "white man's history" is no-no. You'd never be hired as a "professor", KC ( lucky for you).
(BTW, many "students" today might ask, "Who is FDR? Isn't he that guy who was assassinated a long time ago?")
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Ha!
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 11:03 ET by KC MulvilleIt's funny - I can imagine a student sitting in that class, scratching his head, vaguely remembering from history class about FDR's court-packing scheme. Slowly, the synapses coalesce, and the poor kid raises his hand (unaware that he's about to lose his grade point average)
This is why Libs get so
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 11:14 ET by mattmThis is why Libs get so insane when constructionists are nominated to the Court...constructonists do not engage in judicial activism whereas the "progressives" do.
I love how these Libs accuse Bush of unconstitutional actions while they propose virtual shredding of the Constitution via judicial activism!
If the Supeme Court is
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 12:32 ET by motherbeltIf the Supeme Court is supposed to make its rulings according to "popular values" what need is there for it to eve exist????
Liberals think the court's previous makeup with supposedly 4 conservatives and liberals, plus one "swing" vote that usually went their way, was ideal. They really thought O'Connor should have been replaced with another "swing" vote!
Isn't it funny, libs are
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 12:42 ET by dscottIsn't it funny, libs are perfectly happy with the (evil-establishment) status quo when it favors them.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
court stacking...
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 12:52 ET by danybhoySo I'm sure the professor was outraged by the rulings by his fellow liberal/progressive pals involving saaaayy, granting rights to enemy combatants in Gitmo, who should have no rights, not even under the Geneva Convention. What flag do these terrorists fight under anyways? That should answer if they should be granted the rights the leftist legal minds think should be granted. So are they upset by that? I doubt it, nor do I believe the professor getting upset at the idea of gov't stealing one citizens property to sell it to someone else, that would be Kilo vs New London,CT. The SC said that imminant domain can be abused to take away one property owners land to sell it to someone else to gain more tax revenue, that goes way past the old "for the public good" standard.
The left in this country view anything objective as a threat, & the courts are no exception. If you want to see the libs/progressives fight, what happens if Bush gets another stab at a Supreme Court pick. The level of hell that Leahy, Schummer, & Kennedy would raise will be unpresidented, making the Robert Bork hearings look benine. I don't think the level goes down much if say, a president Guliani gets the next pick either. The left will want someone like Ginsberg, only the most "progressive" legal mind will do for America's Move-On/DU/HuffPo/ThinkProgress/MMFA/Newhounds/9-11Truthers, & that should scare the average American.
"A goverment big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away" Barry Goldwater
About the only time the
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 14:35 ET by daveinbocaAbout the only time the Supreme Court was overruled was when Jackson
told Marshall to enforce his ruling on the trail of tears and when
Lincoln shunted Taney to oblivion.
The NYT is having a Linda Greenhouse moment of vapid vacuous shriek-out.
Actually,
poll after poll shows that the Roberts court IS reflecting the
majority---just not the majority of space cadets in the NTY
cocoon-bubble.
And Justice Ginzberg can always read her delusional minority opinions after napping through the argument on the bench! She is just like her ACLU colleagues---don't bother her with arguments, her mind's made up. If this Smith dude had a mind, it would resemble hers.