The experiences and exploits of a college grad trying to make it in the "real world:" leaving school and friends in New England, moving south, and living with her boyfriend. Watch as I pretend to be an adult.
Sorry, no music today- my file hosting service is having issues.
Today I found myself, of all things, sewing (hemming my new work pants) and thinking about the supreme court. Ok, yes, I'm weird- but my thought process went something like this:
I'm sure most people are familiar with the phrase, "a stitch in time saves nine." You know, the piece of wisdom that says putting one stitch in place before something starts to unravel will save a lot of sewing after the fact. A play on this adage is used to describe a famous shift in voting in the Supreme Court during the Roosevelt era (Franklin, not Teddy). You see, when FDR first started trying to implement his New Deal programs, they kept getting struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 5-4 decisions. Roosevelt then introduced legislation that would "pack" the court, increasing the number of justices to 15. The bill didn't make it through Congress, but it did seem to affect the court. Owen Roberts (no relation, I think), who had formerly voted 'conservatively,' (ie against the New Deal cases) began voting for them- switching to a more liberal voting pattern. This change was dubbed "The switch in time that saved nine."
Making "politically savvy" decisions is nothing new for the Supreme Court. John Marshall, the third chief Justice of the Supreme Court is widely considered one of the most discerning and intelligent CJ's in the nations' history. He shaped the role of the Supreme Court in a way that almost no other CJ has. One of his most famous decisions came in the case of Marbury v Madison. Under the administrations of Washington and his successor, John Adams, only members of the ruling Federalist Party were appointed to judicial posts, and under the terms of the Constitution, they held office for life during "good behavior." Thus, when the opposing Republicans won the election of 1800, the Jeffersonians found that while they controlled the presidency and Congress, the Federalists still dominated the judiciary. One of the first acts of the new administration was to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created a number of new judgeships. Although President Adams had attempted to fill the vacancies prior to the end of his term, a number of commissions had not been delivered (deliberately, it appeared), and one of the appointees, William Marbury, sued Secretary of State James Madison to force him to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.
John Marshall understood that if the Court awarded Marbury a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver the commission) the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law, symbolically giving the legislature more power. So, Marshal declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void. Thus he was able to chastise the Jeffersonians and yet not create a situation in which a court order would be flouted.
Now we have John Roberts coming up for appointment as Chief Justice. Honestly, I think just about everyone was surprised by his nomination. I know I was. He has pledged not to be an "idealogue," whatever that means, and I know Democrats are falling all over themselves with glee, pointing out that he's not as "bad" (meaning conservative) as he could be. How on earth do they know? Forget his record as a lawyer. Lawyers work for whoever pays them- that's their job. Roberts has been a judge for two years. TWO years. And now he is going to be the Supreme Court Chief Justice?
This is just another example of Bush putting a grossly underqualified person in a position of great responsibility.
I suppose it could be worse. I suppose Bush could have tapped the former director of the International Arabian Horse Society for the job. Oh, wait, nope... that's right, he's already Director of FEMA.
After 22 posted at 3:53 PM
