Return to Some Things of Note ...
Eric Muller has pointed out that the Stalin quotation could easily be construed as not just a rhetorical overstep, but a threat on a Federal Judge, which is illegal. As he says, if someone said that about the President, the Secret Service might well have a word or two with them....
It's worth noting that the attack on the judiciary is general, not specific: A US Senator's chief of staff recently suggested "mass impeachments" might be called for: if you add that to the call for an end to filibuster on judicial nominees, and it looks like an attempt to pack the courts wholesale.
It's worth noting that the attack on the judiciary is general, not specific: A US Senator's chief of staff recently suggested "mass impeachments" might be called for: if you add that to the call for an end to filibuster on judicial nominees, and it looks like an attempt to pack the courts wholesale.
Re: Republicans v. Judiciary
(#58354)
by Julie A Hofmann on April 10, 2005 at 1:41 PM
by Julie A Hofmann on April 10, 2005 at 1:41 PM
Ok ... I know I'm not an Americanist, or a constitutional scholar, but I vaguely remember something about "separation of powers," independent judiciary, checks and balances ...? Maybe? I think I might be right on this, because when I teach Polybios on Roman government, my students seem to think that there are some similarities. I guess I should read the Constitution again, but it seems like it's getting harder to find an unredacted version.
Re: Republicans v. Judiciary
(#58357)
by Oscar Chamberlain on April 10, 2005 at 2:16 PM
by Oscar Chamberlain on April 10, 2005 at 2:16 PM
Julie,
A quick comment on separations of powers and checks and balances.
The original constitution was designed to force consensus on controversial acts of importance--that is there needed to be a general agreement by a considerable majority or, at minimum, a majority agreement by people elected and appointed at more than one time.
One institutional (as opposed to ideological) purpose of political parties is to evade the need for consensus and replace it with simple majority rule. Whenever a party has both the executive and the legislative branch, its leaders look to reduce the limitations of check and balance republicanism on the policies they support.
The courts have long been something of a sticking point. Life tenure makes it very hard for a party to control the courts. Even in as case such as today, when the vast majority of federal judges and justices have been appointed by Republicans, the phiolosophical range of decisions by Republican appointed judges is far broader than the Republicanism of Bush and DeLay.
The majority's resentment at not controlling the judiciary has overflowed occasionally. It did in Jefferson's first term, when there were attempts, some successful (the Jeffersonians abolished some newly created federal positions) and some not, to remove federalist jugdes.
Resentment led to FDR's failed attempt at Court packing in 1937, and we may see an attempt by Republicans to do something similar over the next year, again driven by resentment.
A quick comment on separations of powers and checks and balances.
The original constitution was designed to force consensus on controversial acts of importance--that is there needed to be a general agreement by a considerable majority or, at minimum, a majority agreement by people elected and appointed at more than one time.
One institutional (as opposed to ideological) purpose of political parties is to evade the need for consensus and replace it with simple majority rule. Whenever a party has both the executive and the legislative branch, its leaders look to reduce the limitations of check and balance republicanism on the policies they support.
The courts have long been something of a sticking point. Life tenure makes it very hard for a party to control the courts. Even in as case such as today, when the vast majority of federal judges and justices have been appointed by Republicans, the phiolosophical range of decisions by Republican appointed judges is far broader than the Republicanism of Bush and DeLay.
The majority's resentment at not controlling the judiciary has overflowed occasionally. It did in Jefferson's first term, when there were attempts, some successful (the Jeffersonians abolished some newly created federal positions) and some not, to remove federalist jugdes.
Resentment led to FDR's failed attempt at Court packing in 1937, and we may see an attempt by Republicans to do something similar over the next year, again driven by resentment.
Re: Republicans v. Judiciary
(#58360)
by Jonathan Dresner on April 10, 2005 at 3:42 PM
by Jonathan Dresner on April 10, 2005 at 3:42 PM
Yeah, I thought of the Court Packing incident, too. I wonder if Republicans remember just how badly that backfired on Roosevelt? If they've thought about it at all, they've learned at least one lesson: prepare the groundwork. There's a powerful echo chamber theme of "judicial activism" and "out of control judges" and "unaccountability" and such trying to problematize that "coequal branches" thing....
Re: Republicans v. Judiciary
(#58546)
by Oscar Chamberlain on April 12, 2005 at 12:38 PM
by Oscar Chamberlain on April 12, 2005 at 12:38 PM
There was a fair amount of anti-court rhetoric from FDR's administration prior to 1937--though I don't know how coordinated it was. I do wonder if the packing issue failed because the biggest program declared unconstitutional by the Court, the NRA, was so clearly a failure. Also the NRA provisions that had a broader appeal, for example concerning labor relations, were put into law again quickly.
Return to Some Things of Note ...
by Jonathan Dresner on April 10, 2005 at 5:17 AM