Site Presented By
Thursday, Nov 26, 2009
Readers weigh in on the future of the Supreme Court and the Greens' role in the '04 presidential campaign. Plus, Rep. Tom Tancredo responds to allegations in "Vigilante Injustice."
Jun 17, 2003 | [Read "The Future Face of American Justice," by Joseph M. Birkenstock.]
Mr. Birkenstock does not appear to understand that the terms "democracy" and "majority rule" are not synonymous. He finds it undemocratic of the people of the United States to follow the system laid out in the Constitution by giving the presidency to the candidate who won the most electoral votes in 1999. He would evidently have found it more democratic had we changed the rules of the electoral game after the votes were cast and given the office to the candidate with the popular majority. Who cares what's written down in that fussy old Constitution -- it's just an anachronism, right?
I didn't vote for Bush, and I'm not a particular fan of the Electoral College. But I am proud of my country for navigating the minefield of the Gore/Bush election without the violence and constitutional collapse that would have followed such a shaky election in many other nations. Our system of government didn't collapse precisely because we do not have simple majority rule but have, instead, a true democracy grounded in respect for the rule of law.
Whether or not Bush's presidency is "legitimate," it would not be democratic for him to give up his right to nominate a Supreme Court justice. Such an action would defy the constitutional system of law over which Bush presides. Mr. Birkenstock needs to realize that living in a democracy means taking responsibility for your electoral losses as well as for your victories. It does not mean weakening the presidency, the Constitution and the rule of law for future generations, just because your candidate lost in 1999.
-- Catherine Murphy
It would be a conflict of interest for Bush to choose a Supreme Court justice. This Supreme Court decided the presidency in the last election. For that same president to turn around and pack the court would in essence make the court a self-replicating institution.
The weakness of the decision to grant the presidency -- the very fact that the person who was chosen president did not receive the most votes -- just underscores this basic conflict.
-- Samuel Knight
This could become the Democrats winning issue in 2004. A vacant Supreme Court seat and a venomous Senate showdown would be great drama. The issue would explode where other scandals melt away. It would make heroes of Democrats and moderates to all but the farthest right of the right wing.
Court appointees are the one issue where Democrats have shown strength. The message would have the force of simple, unnuanced truth: One more Reublican vote, and abortion is illegal.
-- Kevin Fattor
John Birkenstock's perpetuation of the myth that George Bush serves illegitimately, and his expansion of this specious argument to the notion that Supreme Court justices owe some duty to the nation to avoid a well-deserved retirement, are both insulting in their presumption and laughable in their arrogance.
Whether one lives in a blue state or a red one, every informed citizen is well aware of the rules that govern the election of the president of the United States. The Electoral College exists because the authors of the Constitution and the congresses that have amended it (or not) over the years intended it to do so. How is this anything but the most democratic of circumstances?
The Supreme Court in turn performed its constitutional role in 2000, hearing a case that was brought before it and deciding it according to the individual justices' interpretation of the law. To suggest that justices appointed by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Reagan somehow are in cahoots with the Republican Party is to condemn the entire political process of the last 25 years.
If Mr. Birkenstock is so concerned that the Bush administration is corrupting America, he should quit looking for ways to overturn the results of the last election and focus on winning the next one. Unfortunately for him, that would require ideas extending beyond obstruction and petty backbiting. Elections are won or lost regardless of the margin of victory, and that victory entitles the officeholder to execute his duties.
-- Christian Germain
So the only way to restore integrity to the Supreme Court That Failed is for the president to forgo replacing any retiring justice until the president is legitimately elected in 2004? Forget about it. It ain't gonna happen.
The next best option is for the Democrats to filibuster any Bush nomination to the court until after the election. Even if we're still cursed with Bush in the White House at that point, his nomination should then be given full and fair consideration.
-- Jack Madsen
[Read "Can Bush Be Toppled?"]
I enjoyed your article, and I'd like to share a couple of thoughts. First, I woke today with the epiphany that Bush will lose the election: When push comes to shove, his repeated tax cuts for the wealthy are really bad for the economy, and this will be his downfall.
As for the Green Party, as Nader is no doubt aware, studies have consistently shown that our system of democracy, namely the winner-takes-all system, has a very strong correlation with, and is probably the causation of, a two-party system. This explains why the United States has never seen three or more major parties for any extended period of time. If the Green Party is truly committed to changing the two-party system, it ought to start engaging the masses to demand alternative voting systems -- whether parliamentary, preferential voting, runoff voting or any number of others.
For the Green Party to enter into the presidential race again is simply stupid and purposefully destructive to our country. I truly question the good intentions of Nader and his ilk, who are intelligent enough to realize that launching presidential campaigns at this time can have only negative effects.
-- Dave Min
