I actually went to school with Berkeley Breathed (I was in graduate school, he was an undergrad, we never met. It was a school of 50,000 people, I've lived in smaller towns). I thought of that comic (above; and found it! Praise be to Google and the intertoobs!) when I read this:
Rep. James Clyburn says Ilhan Omar’s experience is ‘more personal’ than that of Holocaust survivors’ children https://t.co/b25LQTMvlu with @mikedebonis— Felicia Sonmez (@feliciasonmez) March 7, 2019
Yeah, that's pretty much where we are. And part of what's happening is actually this:
Case study in how an idea goes mainstream ... https://t.co/rJY2w8iobL— Alex Burns (@alexburnsNYT) March 7, 2019
Roosevelt wanted to expand the Court, at one point, to 15 justices. His critics denounced the plan as "court packing." Now journalists use the term as a noun. The number of justices started at 6, in 1789. It went up to 7 in 1803, then 9 in 1837, then 10 in 1863. I have yet to find any reference to any of these increases as "court packing." It went down to 7, and Andrew Jackson was blocked from adding 3 Justices to the court with the move; which puts the recent actions of Mitch McConnell in a slightly different light. But the point is, the number is set by Congress, not Art. III; and it has fluctuated in almost 220 years, without causing the death of the republic or the end of comity as we have known it.
I especially like the fact Congress slapped President Jackson so hard. Kinda makes "court packing" sound reasonable by comparison. There are a lot of sound arguments to be made for expanding the Court, especially as the Court has become more political and politicized in my lifetime. It would probably save the Court, which after all has only its reputation to rest on, finally (something Roberts, who seems to be the new Kennedy, seems to understand). It might also lighten the load on the other justices. But we can't even discuss the topic if we have to get around journalists describing it with a pejorative. In fact, we can't decide very many important things if everybody is going to use, or insist everyone else is using, offensive terms.
I'm in favor of it if the new seats come with math/science requirements. It's scary that the members of the court hear cases which they don't understand because they are ignorant of math and science, especially as a number of them claim that they don't need no stinkin' education in those things by virtue of having been to law school.
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of a more radical change that required unanimity to overturn laws passed by congress and signed into law. As you pointed out, it's ridiculous that the thoughts of five isolated judges can overturn the considered experience of a majority of congress and the executive. Especially when, as I said, some of them are unequipped to understand the issues involved and are too arrogant to understand why that's a problem.
Oh, and the country was a better place when Bloom County was in the paper every day.
ReplyDeleteI have fond memories of an evening with lawyers, back when I was a fish lawyer myself, telling stories on another lawyer fool enough to think he could be his own general contractor on a remodeling job. Every lawyer who knows better, knows at least one lawyer who thinks law school prepares you to be expert in any field.
ReplyDeleteAnd the lawyers who aren't that stupid.