Court-packing: Obama to succeed where FDR failed

It’s sitting there as plain as the nose on your face.  The purpose of filleting the filibuster, Harry Reid’s latest contribution to the advance of mob rule, is to allow Barack Obama to pack the federal courts with ideologically sympathetic judges.

This is not a Tea Party allegation; it’s the conclusion of Mark 1-Mod 0 liberal-leaning staff writers at the major news organizations.  You’ve probably heard it yourself in the hours since Reid pushed the “nuclear” button yesterday:  “filibuster mumble mumble judiciary/justices/court mumble mumble” goes the standard media patter on the topic.  Outside of the industry-insider media in Washington, however, there is little emphasis on the specifics and meaning of the court-packing plan.

And other than on talk radio, there aren’t a lot of pundits clarifying what will be involved.  The average person’s imagination probably goes to

Advertisement

Eyes on the ball, folks: SCOTUS has ruled Congress can make us buy stuff

A surprising number of conservative commentators have come out cheering the ObamaCare decision because it ruled that the Commerce clause in the Constitution – Congress’s power to regulate commerce across the 50 states – doesn’t empower our legislators to force us to buy things (in this case, health insurance).

Of course, Congress can require those who propose to engage in regulated activities to purchase things, as a price of doing business.  But ObamaCare forces us to buy insurance just because we woke up one day and were citizens of the United States (and earning a certain income and not covered by insurance our employers have to buy).

The real decision

SCOTUS has said Congress can do that.

Govfall: Or, tell me again why federal courts are ruling on the validity of scientific theories?

We in the US appear to be very close to becoming a theocracy.  The religion in question is not Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, nor is it even environmentalism.  It’s “government infallibilism,” or, as I like to call it, Govfall.  The central tenet of this religion is that government is competent to decide or rule on anything – anything at all, regardless of evidence or lack of it, knowledge or paucity of it, or understanding or dearth of it.

The branch of the US government that represents the proper use of Govfall’s main religious tenet isn’t always the same one (which, frankly, ought to be a clue for believers).  The judicial branch has been, as it were, on the throne of judgment for a number of decades, but Americans have also suffered a few presidents to seat themselves on it,

That was quick: Obama backtracks, says SCOTUS “is the final say”

Other bloggers have covered in detail President Obama’s expanding body of philosophical commentary on the judicial branch of government.  Powerline’s John Hinderaker had a particularly strong post on Tuesday refuting the Obama backtrack, in which the president claimed that the Supreme Court had not invalidated laws relating to commerce and the economy for “decades.”  Hinderaker lists recent instances of SCOTUS doing exactly that.

A furor of deductions and rumors has arisen around the president’s utterances on the judiciary.  But what caught my attention was how quickly and with what language Obama clarified his Monday gaffe.  This was the money quote:

Hopey-Changey-Unconstitutional-y

The enthusiastic Virginia Phillips, US District Court judge in Riverside, California, has today enjoined the Department of Defense to cease enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) forthwith.  The US Justice Department had appealed her September ruling that the law is unconstitutional, but Phillips issued her injunction pending higher court action.

It’s not clear that, as a federal district judge, she even has the authority to do this.  The whole case, which was brought originally by the Log Cabin Republicans, has reeked of bad-law exceptionalism.