The Supremes and Douthat
June 26, 2013
Rarely do I receive a compliment like the one immediately below. So I thought I would post it. [You need to read from the bottom up to follow these emails.]
Friend: “Oh, now I have to admit that you have made me see something I hadn't seen before--shit, did I just write that? –P”
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Peter Schultz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Every so often, but not very, Douthat writes something that is interesting to me. This isn't one of them. Jesus, he is still implying/arguing that the framers were not amenable to an activist judiciary. Really? Of course they were, which is why Jefferson waged a virtual war on the national judiciary and sought to impeach a supreme court justice and had he been successful would have gone after Chief Justice Marshall, whom he hated personally. Besides, why provide the justices with virtual life tenure if they were not to be making controversial decisions with great political impact? What kind of sense does that make? And it was expected that the Supremes would use this power to "stabilize" our politics. From what? Oh, those pesky people who want their needs addressed. Douthat is still under the impression that the framers were really interested in a government that the people or popular opinion would control.
Here is my take on yesterday and today and the Supremes: Gay and lesbian marriage is not a threat to the oligarchy which rules this nation, but voting rights are. End of story.
The issue is or should be the oligarchy that governs or rules, with of course the help of the Supremes. Remember Citizens United? Obama obviously doesn't. Douthat of course as part of the mainstream media does what he can to obfuscate this issue. This is an illustration of that obfuscation.
On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:31 P. wrote:
> From The New York Times:
>> ROSS DOUTHAT: When Congress Abdicates
>> The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision and the appeal of juristocracy.