If you're under the impression that the system exists merely to facilitate your partisan agenda, it's not surprising that you also believe it's "Broken" every time things don't go your way.
This is why so many Democrats argue that we should "Fix" the Electoral College when they lose a presidential election and "Fix" the filibuster when they run the Senate and now "Fix" the Supreme Court when they don't run the Senate.
"Reformers" like Klein and his allies would convince Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a man who once argued that weakening the Senate filibuster would "Destroy the very checks and balances our Founding Fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government," to use the "Nuclear option" and blow up Senate rules on judicial filibusters so Obama could stack the courts.
Today, he couches concerns about the system in the supposed tribulations surrounding "Life appointments" to the court.
In any event, there is simple solution: voters should assume that every president will name at least one Supreme Court justice and vote accordingly.
Others, like Harvard's Ian Samuels, are more straightforwardly partisan, proposing that the next Democrat candidate promise to add six justices to the Supreme Court to neutralize the power of the textualists and create a progressive court.
Nothing is more chaotic than altering the rules every time you experience a political defeat.
This is why so many Democrats argue that we should "Fix" the Electoral College when they lose a presidential election and "Fix" the filibuster when they run the Senate and now "Fix" the Supreme Court when they don't run the Senate.
"Reformers" like Klein and his allies would convince Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a man who once argued that weakening the Senate filibuster would "Destroy the very checks and balances our Founding Fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government," to use the "Nuclear option" and blow up Senate rules on judicial filibusters so Obama could stack the courts.
Today, he couches concerns about the system in the supposed tribulations surrounding "Life appointments" to the court.
In any event, there is simple solution: voters should assume that every president will name at least one Supreme Court justice and vote accordingly.
Others, like Harvard's Ian Samuels, are more straightforwardly partisan, proposing that the next Democrat candidate promise to add six justices to the Supreme Court to neutralize the power of the textualists and create a progressive court.
Nothing is more chaotic than altering the rules every time you experience a political defeat.
No comments:
Post a Comment