CSPAN Induced Ranting: Episode I

So, as you may have guessed by now, I was watching CSPAN earlier today, and I got pissed off. Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy (a Regan appointee) and Clarence Thomas (a Bush I appointee) were giving some sort of a Q&A with the House Appropriations Subcommittee. I missed the part with Thomas, and, given how pissed I got at everyone in the room when Kennedy was speaking, it was probably best for my health that I did.

For some inexplicable reason, Ted Tiahrt of Kansas (guess which party) was given a fair amount of time to speak. Frankly, politicians from Kansas just don't deserve that kind of treatment. He asked Kennedy if he felt that judges should recuse themselves from cases based on their faith. That's a bit of a misnomer actually... Tiahrt asked Kennedy if he agreed that faith is important to our culture and should therefore not be grounds for recusal. The analogy given? There are 435 members of the House, and they're from all sorts of ethnic and religious backgrounds, and they still get things done! This is why I say the things I do about Kansas politicians. There aren't nine members of the House, making each one's decision vital to the outcome of the case as well as the direction of the country; instead, there are 435, and I doubt that 434 of them would ever take Tiahrt's analogy seriously.

O.K., so I'm a dick and think Tiahrt said something idiotic. No big deal there. I think lots of people say things that are idiotic. That's another misnomer. I think I say a lot of things that are idiotic, and sometimes other people do too. I was ready to let things go until Tiahrt went on, and said as if it were a granted matter of fact that we have a big increase in judicial activism. Congratulations, Ted! You just tipped me over the edge in to the swirling viscous gooey oblivion of yet another political rant! Judicial activism is on the rise, so say the Republicans, because we now see judges allowing gay people to get married, gasp, to each other. There are several people right here in Kansas that feel this is a bad idea. These activists judges have done things like looking at the state constitutions and deciding that they prevent discrimination based on sexual preference, and shame on them for all of that and whatnot. You know the Republican answer to this, of course: John Roberts and Samuel Alito (who's wife can cry on cue while dressed as her mother's couch).

When these guys were up for approval, there was a lot of rhetoric coming out of the republican punditry saying that abortion wouldn't even get to the Supreme Court any time soon. Because of that, we didn't need to worry that these guys are young as shit and will be there whenever it is that abortion does make it to their doorstep. South Dakota fixed that quickly by explicitly stating that they made a strict anti-abortion bill (which was signed in to law) with the specific intent of getting it to the Supreme Court so that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned. O'Connor's out, and she took abortion with her, just like I've been saying all this time. Now, maybe it's just me, but I always thought that upholding a constitution of a state or a nation was not activism, but overturning a thirty year precedent such as Roe vs. Wade was. Nevertheless, we have the matter of fact increase in judicial activism from these crazy judges that read their state constitutions.

Where's the democrat to save the day? We had Tiahrt followed up by Arizona's own Ed Pastor. He not only agreed that we have this awful increase in judicial activism, but then went on to ask Kennedy what he thought of congress increasing his salary. Kennedy replied with something a bit weaker than what I have heard about the issue. It was essentially this: Justices don't make enough money, and that threatens the court. Kennedy seemed to want to say that it threatened the court since better lawyers were staying in law firms, but that doesn't seem like a threat so much as a veiled shot at a couple justices he thinks aren't good enough to be on the bench. What I have heard that does sound like a threat, is that the Justices will have to be compensated in other ways than their salaries. Kennedy managed to mention this compensation as well, but it was more under his breath than anything. While the O'Reilly factor's lack of spin might decide for you that this means democrats are killing our courts for some goddamned reason (which they will call a report, leaving the decision they already made for you to then be re-decided by you; thus, making their slogan work in the most spun bullshit way possible), it sounds to me like a hint at bribery pervading our highest court. Thank you, Ed, for sticking up for rational human beings in the face of Tiahrt towing the most bullshit parts of the Republican Party line so hard he didn't even notice he was doing it... you did a great job there... by agreeing with it all.... thanks...