Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys underground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"Let’s eat all of these people!” — Venom

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Friday, July 1, 2022

Legitimacy and Why It Matters, or
"Nice Little Representative Democracy You Have Here. Pity If Something Were To Happen to It."

Let's say that there is a basketball game that is played between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Carolina Hurricanes. Lots of people are interested to see the spectacle and they fill up the Gund Arena for the game. Millions of people tune in to watch.

There's lots of action, lots of laughs at the sight of a baseball team playing a hockey team in a basketball game. Everyone has fun and the Redbirds win. Lots of people bet at the various sports books, for nothing like a really insane game to bring out the patsies. The sportswriters write some great pieces. Everyone goes home happy.

Now, let's change things a little. The officials are flagrantly pro-Hurricanes. Imaginary fouls are called on the Cardinals, while the Hurricanes' players can do anything short of knifing the Cardinal's players. Nobody is happy, there is fighting on the court that spreads into the stands. The cops show up in force, hundreds of people are arrested and the Gund Arena is burned to the ground.

The first version of the game was legitimate. Maybe those who bet bigly on the Hurricanes were disapppointed, but those are the breaks of the game. In the second version of the game, the winners won by basically cheating, the losers were gypped and nobody with a rational mind recognizes the validity of the game.

This is, in essence, what is happening to the Supreme Court. While the justices all said that "we only call balls and strikes", it's pretty clear, with the recent flurry of decisions, that the Court is operating in a zone where they are blatantly twisting the Constitution and the law to achieve the results that they want, which is: Making this country into a Christianist nation.

Confidence in the Court, usually the best-liked branch of government, is reaching new lows.

Issuing bullshit rulings hurts their legitimacy. Oh, they may proclaim that no kid is coerced to attend the coach's prayers, but that's a crock. Anyone who knows anything about school sports knows it's a crock.

The Court has very little in the way of enforcement mechanism. They can issue orders, but if their orders are ignored, there really is fuck-all they can do about it. Let's say, for example, that the State Legislature of New York in reaction to Bruen says "fuck you, we're not changing the laws."[1]

Are they going to hold each legislator who doesn't vote the way that they want in contempt? Are they going to issue a writ to every county in NY when the local issuing authority refuses to issue a permit? Because, as BadTux has noted, the Feds aren't going to send in the paratroopers to enforce the decision.[2]

Between the overturning of Roe, Bruen and the EPA case, one can reasonably state that the batshit-crazy wing of the Supremes has decided to take a massive shit on their oath of office, which requires them to impartially decide cases. Which they are not doing, they are deciding them ideologically.

But hold onto your drawers, folks, it's going to get worse:

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a case that could dramatically change how federal elections are conducted. At issue is a legal theory that would give state legislatures unfettered authority to set the rules for federal elections, free of supervision by the state courts and state constitutions.

The theory, known as the "independent state legislature theory," stems from the election clause in Article I of the Constitution. It says, "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."

Extreme jerrymandering? Check. Decertifying the results of an election because the Trumpists don't like who won? Check. Let's be clear about this, if that was in place for the 2020 election, the Republicans would have thrown out the results in the battleground states and installed TOFF as, in essence, an illegitimate dictator.

What would conditions be like now if that had been done, if the majority of the American people recognized that TOFF and his thugs had indeed stolen the election? I don't know, and neither do you. But ask this question: Cui bono? Who benefits?

The only winners in destabilizing the United States are Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jon-Il.

I remember when the Right was big on loyalty oaths. Too bad that they have stopped believing in swearing loyalty to the United States and now, only swear loyalty to their party and to the TOFF.

Also, what the Rude Pundit said.
_____________________________
[1] After all, there are a bunch of batshit-crazy sheriffs who say they don't recognize federal law.
[2] What is more likely to happen will be "enhanced" training requirements (designed to keep those people from qualifying for permits, and expansive rules on where guns can't be carried, all designed to make people go back to Federal court to have the requirements invalidated, a process that will take years.

8 comments:

Ten Bears said...

Confidence in the Court? Surly, you jest ...

BadTux said...

I will just leave my take-away here:

"Last week’s Supreme Court decisions weren’t an accidental destruction of the Court’s legitimacy — they were a deliberate destruction by people who want to burn it all down. And if you are not a white male Christian with conservative beliefs, you should be very, very worried right now."

Comrade Misfit said...

To a certain commenter:

When you conclude a long, somewhat rational comment with a personal insult directed at me, I will delete it.

You have been warned before, but you seem to be suffering from White Christian Male syndrome: The rules shouldn’t apply to you.

Well guess what, Bucko: my blog, my rules. If you can’t comply, don’t let the screen door hit you in the ass.

To everyone else: Comments about this comment are not permitted. (I’ll delete them, too.)

dan gerene said...

During the Obama years when I had the time to read more articles on the internet a term "Goodwins Law" came up. Which basically said long internet discussions would eventually turn to comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis. What started as an interest in WW11 technology turned into researching the rise of Fascism and Hitler. Breaking that law, I will say there is an element in this country that has studied that playbook and is definitely following it. First utilizing the Constitution, then working on bending it to their cause, then destroying it. They are already up to the second one.

B said...

THe final comment was appropriate, sorry you felt it was a personal insult.
You obviously used it as a reason not to address the other points.
Feel free to publish the first part and delete the part you felt was an insult....but really, why won't you answer the part about legitimacy? Why deflect?

Sorry if you felt that it was an insult. You allow much greater insults to me form the commenters you approve of here, so I thought it would be accepted.
For that, I apologize.

Comrade Misfit said...

I insist on being respected in the place that I run. I would not go onto your blog, or anyone else's blog, and tell them that they are acting like a spoiled child.

But as to commenters insulting each other, consider the source. If someone needs to insult someone else in order to make a point, that point, in my opinion, is of degraded validity.

That's opposed to insulting public officials and celebrities. They signed up for that treatment.

I don't have the capability of editing comments. It's "approve" or "delete". 99% pure water, 1% urine is still sewage.

Dark Avenger said...

How dare CM run this blog as if she had something important to say! /s

Daniel Becker said...

There is a book I read that came out in 2012. Why Nations Fail. If you have not read it, I think you would find it very interesting. Written by 2 economist who offer up a theory that the course of a nation is based on a number of decisions made and contingencies that come up.

What they get to is that a nation will either be inclusive (democracy and equality) or exclusive (autocracy, dictator, etc). What I came to understood is that history proves out that moving from an inclusive structure to an exclusive structure is far easier than going the other way.

After reading this book, I became very concerned about the direction we were and are moving in.

There is also a report by the World Bank on what creates wealth 2005. In it, they noted that for a developed nation such as the US it is not the tangible assets (natural resources etc) but the intangible assets. 76% of our wealth is from our judiciary system and education system. The 2 systems the right/conservative movement is undermining, destroying. They are actually harming their ability to generate wealth, the very thing they are most concerned with.

I blogged on the WB report and noted that what they were actually talking about was trust. Trust is what allows a nation to grow as the western nations have. It is why nations such as China and Russia will never reach their full potential. We have taken for granted just how much trust plays in our lives even with the most basic daily interactions. Thus your sporting event analogy.

Thank you for your post. I enjoy reading your blog.