Supreme Court II

 

Session One

As soon as I draw, get sent to Allah
Bilinguist don, I kill with the tongue, I'm Atilla the Hun
I'm Genghis Khan, I'm a genius spawn

I pillage your village for fun, an egregious con
A syllable gun, real as they come, Long Beach Saddam!
Slaughterhouse equals swine flu, are South flyin' 

Egregious, “Strip-Search Sammy”?  Really? Really? Really? 

I have suggested to the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court that Justices should serve staggered terms of 16 years. Then except for a death in office, each President can expect to make only two nominations during his term. That means that during the one term of the Orange Menace, it should be expected that only two Justices  should have been nominated to the Supreme Court. We might still have gotten Justices Neil “NOT Merrick Garland” Gorsuch and Brett “Frat Boy” Kavanaugh, but at least we might have been spared Justice Amy “Handmaiden” Coney Barrett.

Also Supreme Court decisions should not reflect just a simple majority. Up until the 1940s, opinions of the Supreme Court were by consensus. The recent majority opinions are a historical aberration. If the opinions are by consensus, then they are by definition supermajority decision. But a consensus as a supermajority can be blocked by a single individual. The most important decisions for the United States, wars, treaties, amendments, etc, are made by supermajorities that are NOT 100%. Shouldn’t the opinions of the Supreme Court also be by a supermajority. Otherwise they are opinions of a simple majority of the SCOTUS,  but might reflect a minority of the People they have sworn to represent. This appears to be the case in the draft opinion on abortions. Despite the fact that the majority of the county appears to favor abortions in some cases, the majority of the SCOTUS appears poised to opine that the heck with that majority, their opinion is the Law. It is the Law. It is not Justice.

“Egregious”, Justice “Strip-Search Sammy” Alito? It would nice if you knew what that word means. It literally means illustrious, standing out from the flock. Your usage is its more common ironic use. Even if you intended the ironic meaning, even if you share that opinion with four other justices, it is not a supermajority of the Supreme Court. Only supermajority opinions are considered to be those of the People.

I am old enough to remember that when John F. Kennedy ran for President,  he had to convince Southern Baptists that his Catholic beliefs would not take precedence over his responsibility as President. Justice Alito can have his beliefs and the “conservative” Justices endorsed by the Federalist Society can also share those beliefs. However their beliefs are not those of the People that they have sworn to represent.