Yesterday's election results persuasively showed that the power of corporations and other monied-interests to influence election results and to ensure the election of pliant office-holders who will do their bidding is a serious threat to American democracy. The existence of checks and balances and divided government the federal level, and of so many porous, overlapping units of government at all levels has already created an appalling lack of accountability. Unfortunately, nothing short of major constitutional changes to our political system- a virtual impossibility given the amendment process - can give us accountable, issue-oriented, transparent government.
There is, however, a viable strategy which progressives can unite around. The current lame-duck Congress - through legislation - can undo the damage done by the five right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court who gave us the Citizens United decision. There is nothing sacrosanct, and no constitutional impediment exists, to changing the size of the court. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the court was comprised of six and later seven justices. The current nine member court was created by the Judiciary Act of 1869. By increasing the size of the U.S. Supreme Court to eleven or twelve seats, the influence of unelected ideologues who enjoy life-tenure can be mitigated and our democracy rescued.
Stalwart defenders of the status-quo will remind us President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a somewhat similar strategy in 1937 when he sought to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent who reached the age of seventy years and 6 months and declined to retire. Although Roosevelt's proposal was panned as a "Court-packing" scheme, it had a salutary effect: The Court became more receptive to New Deal legislation such as the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as a majority of the justices reluctantly agreed to a more expansive interpretation of Congress's authority to regulate in the public interest under the interstate commerce clause.
By contrast, the five current right-wing ideologues are not likely to be swayed by appeals to reason or by mere threats. Four of the current cabal were signatories to the infamous Bush v. Gore decision which was, given the Court's refusal to defer to the political process, a pre-determined, result-oriented judicial coup d'etat . There is something unseemly in a democracy about an institution that allows five judges who share an intractable commitment to nineteenth century Social Darwinism to thwart the will of the Congress or the people. Absent a change in the current composition of the court, President Obama's health care legislation will be the next piece of legislation on the executioner's block.
There is, however, a viable strategy which progressives can unite around. The current lame-duck Congress - through legislation - can undo the damage done by the five right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court who gave us the Citizens United decision. There is nothing sacrosanct, and no constitutional impediment exists, to changing the size of the court. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the court was comprised of six and later seven justices. The current nine member court was created by the Judiciary Act of 1869. By increasing the size of the U.S. Supreme Court to eleven or twelve seats, the influence of unelected ideologues who enjoy life-tenure can be mitigated and our democracy rescued.
Stalwart defenders of the status-quo will remind us President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a somewhat similar strategy in 1937 when he sought to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent who reached the age of seventy years and 6 months and declined to retire. Although Roosevelt's proposal was panned as a "Court-packing" scheme, it had a salutary effect: The Court became more receptive to New Deal legislation such as the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as a majority of the justices reluctantly agreed to a more expansive interpretation of Congress's authority to regulate in the public interest under the interstate commerce clause.
By contrast, the five current right-wing ideologues are not likely to be swayed by appeals to reason or by mere threats. Four of the current cabal were signatories to the infamous Bush v. Gore decision which was, given the Court's refusal to defer to the political process, a pre-determined, result-oriented judicial coup d'etat . There is something unseemly in a democracy about an institution that allows five judges who share an intractable commitment to nineteenth century Social Darwinism to thwart the will of the Congress or the people. Absent a change in the current composition of the court, President Obama's health care legislation will be the next piece of legislation on the executioner's block.
Interesting idea, Paul. Not sure what it would take to make it fly, but then it begs the question as to whether Obama is actually a progressive or merely another one of the pliant pols in the pay of the corporate and private powers that be. More and more, it seems like the latter. His appointment of economic advisors and Sec. of Education are particularly egregious examples of his lining up with Wall Street over the interests of the people. So I'm rather skeptical of seeing a move like the one you propose from Mr. Obama.
If he were to make that move, I would expect the currently-comprised Congress to put him on trial with the goal of removing him from office. They couldn't get a conviction in the Senate, but given the trends we've seen in the last 30 years, I can't see this new House NOT making that play nonetheless. It certainly worked to slow down Bill Clinton in his second term.
That said, I'd love to see your suggestion happen.