E.J. Dionne asks:
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?
In a word, yes.
In more words, Dionne’s question also implies that it would be no more fair for the president to name justices reflecting his “philosophy,” leading to a Court dominated by that “philosophy,” if he had won 53% of the vote or even a landslide of 60%. Why is that?
Dionne’s question implies that the Supreme Court is like some sort of cabinet in a parliamentary system, where powerful parties can demand representation. But if parties have some sort of right to be represented on the Court, why not just elect the justices? (Though you’d have to be careful to devise an election scheme that guaranteed representation to minority parties.)
For that matter, if the Court represents the political power balance in the country and partisan “philosophy” determiness the meaning of the Constitution, why even have a Court?
A number of State Supreme Court Justices, including Michigan’s, are elected. And even though the Michigan Court is currently 5-2 Republican, there are a number of problems with the system as well. There’s an incredible advantage to incumbency, since they are “bottom of the ticket” candidates (and can’t show party affiliation on the ballot, so minor name recognition is important).
Your last paragraph though hints at the problem. There has become an increasing polarization of American politics, with a shrinking middle ground and shrinking room for consensus or objectives that all agree upon. While both parties are too blame for this, the “deconstruction” of meaning and the language for political ends, primarily by the “academic left”, can be seen a particular brutal attack on consensus. If words have no meaning, or are subject to constant change to fit the whims of certain interests, then consensus becomes much more difficult.
The bottom line is there is no “fair” system that can accomodate every interest. Too many interests compete directly, and any system is open to manipulation by someone or some interest.
Did this man raise such a question when slick won in 1992 with 42% of the vote? Double standards again.
“For that matter, if the Court represents the political power balance in the country and partisan “philosophy” determiness the meaning of the Constitution, why even have a Court?”
Did nobody ever explain separation of powers to you?
Elections Mean Nothing: E.J. Dionne
I nearly had a stroke when I came across the opening paragraph of E.J. Dionne’s column today. 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…
Did nobody ever explain separation of powers to you?
Oh, now I get it. The function of the Supreme Court is … not to be the president or the Congress. Did nobody ever explain to you that separation of powers into three branches would make no sense if the branches didn’t have different functions — you know, legislative, executive, and judicial? If the judicial branch is simply a smaller (and unaccountable) legislature, it makes no sense to have one.
“If the judicial branch is simply a smaller (and unaccountable) legislature, it makes not sense to have one.”
It still has a different functional ability. No army, no press secretaries, no ability to pass long comprehensive legislation, no power to raise taxes to fund itself, etc..
But part of separation of powers is that the branches compete, not just that they are different. Here they’re still competing.
After reading Dionne
“actus says “compete” when she means “cooperate”, right actus?”
I think when we have them trying to overrule and countering each other, compete is a more accurate characterization.
Fantastic point of view. Any nomination W sends up will make the ‘Borking’ of Bork look like roll call at a Junior League meeting. Further, you have one of the best blogs going. The stories and sources you cite are as poignant as they are original. Keep up the posts. Tally Ho!
Separation of powers meant/s both competition and cooperation by the three branches. Cooperation is required to “enforce” a law or hold it “constitutional” (or for the judiciary to “defer” to the separate branches). For something to happen typically, each of the three branches must agree and perform a different function – that’s cooperation. Competition occurs only when the branches don’t concur.