LOADING CLOSE

071518 Our right to petition for redress of grievances

071518 Our right to petition for redress of grievances

The real reason for the bitter angst over the Supreme Court vacancy is that the 5-4 split wipes out our right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  When the judiciary overrides the legislature, then we have no viable avenue for redress of grievances.

That’s what causes the anger – it arises from the feelings of helplessness and unfair treatment, that we are enslaved by five partisan political hacks dressed up in black robes.  The Left are glimpsing that scenario now looming in front of them, and their fear and anger are palpable.

Welcome to our world, dear Left!  For fifty years you have used the 5-4 split to cram Left-wing “genius” down our throats.  We told you it didn’t feel very good to be the “cramm-ee” and we begged you to not do things that way.  We implored you to uphold the rule of law and respect the authority of the legislature.  We warned you it would one day turn around on you.

But, no, you were having so much fun being the “cramm-er” and you thought it would never end, so you persisted in establishing the system of the 5-4 “cramm-er” and “cramm-ee”.

And now the day has arrived when you face the prospect of spending a season as “cramm-ee”.  You see very clearly that it won’t be a pleasant experience.

Well, I’ve come to offer you hope.  There’s an easy way to avoid suffering as “cramm-ee”.  Just help us take away the tool that establishes the system of the 5-4 “cramm-er” and “cramm-ee”.  Remove the ability of the Supreme Court to decide things by 5-4.

Our Constitution empowers Congress to make the rules governing the exercise of judicial power.  There is the general power of Article I, Section 8, as well as the specific power of Article III, Section 2.  Well, then, let’s apply that power while we have control of the legislature!

How about these two rules for the exercise of judicial power:

  1. Whenever a judicial ruling by a lower court purports to overturn or strike down a law, that ruling does not take effect until it has been approved by an appellate court.
  2. All appellate courts and the Supreme Court must act only through unanimous decisions of the entire court.

Citizens are expected to know the law.  Juries are required to act only through unanimous decisions.  So why not put the same requirements on judges and justices?  Why should we tolerate 44% of the Supreme Court not knowing the law?  That’s what a 5-4 decision means, right?  It means that 44% of the Supreme Court didn’t know what the law was.

Of course, a cynic might say that perhaps it means 56% of the Supreme Court didn’t know what the law was!  Either way, the point stands about how the 5-4 split makes for bad law.

We’re required to know the law, and we can only act through unanimous decisions when we sit on juries … but somehow it’s okay for judges and justices to not know the law? And they can act through split decisions?  BULL.  We can and should apply the unanimous-decision requirement to the exercise of judicial power.

That will remove the fear and anger, because it preserves the legislature and elections as a viable avenue for citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances.  Neither party is likely to have an opportunity to “stack” the Supreme Court 9-0, and all Senators should fiercely resist any attempt to do so.

If you Democrats offer to implement this rule, we will support it.  You see, we actually believe in the rule of law.  We haven’t just been putting that “spin” on the issue, it’s what we actually believe.  We trust the ability of the governed to make decisions.  We accept defeat and turn our efforts toward trying harder to advocate our cause at the next election.

Now that you are facing a turn as “cramm-ee”, would you like to join us in taking away the tool of the “cramm-er”?  Can you see the desirability and worth of the rule of law, now?

 

ERpundit  –  07/15/18

Comments are closed.