Sunday, December 18, 2011

Supreme Court, Term Limits, Federal Judges, Rick Perry , Newt Gingrich and Billl O'Reilly: 2 Pomopous Asses vs. 9 Poompous Asses

This blog has long favored term limits for ALL Federal offices that are not civil service, includn gthee judiciary (Supreme Court justices, and all lower courts). This would aoppply to Congress, the FBI director (the "Hoover problem), the CIA direcgtor, and every other Federal positioin that is not Civil Service. The term limit (in the smae job) would be 12 lyears. That would be the limit for Senators, Representativcves, Supreme Court justices, other Federal judges, Fed Chairmen, FBI directors and everybody else in a policy makng position. The only exception would be the President, where the term limit would remain at two terms, as it is at lpresent, because of the power of th.

One of Newt Gingrich's many betrayals of principle waws sthe ABANDONMENT of term limits when the GOP House was elected in 1994. However, it is hard to blame Gingrich to much. "Term limits" were part of teh "Contract with America", but once the "good guy" were in office this was seen as just a tactic that would keep good people from staying n Washington, wwhere they were needed. .......................................................................................................................Sorry. Have you stopped laughing yet? These fits I get typing these ridiculous things are going to kill me yet. Suddenly, Gingrich said that all the "Congract with America" did was promise a VOTE on the items, and not that the gOP would actually support them. Still, it is hard to blame Gingrich. This was the reaction of almost every GOP politician, once that politician ws elected. It was also the reaction of people like Rush Limbuah, who said that the "real" problem was "one party rule over decades", and that you should not force "good people" out with term limits.

Yep. This is another instance where I was right and Rush Limbaugh (more partisan than principled, which is the opposite of this blog) was WRONG. The idea that the GOP politicians did not need term limits is absurd, and anotehr area where this blog was PROVEN right (or I waas, as it predated the blog, although the blog picked up the issue as soon as I started it many years ago). Lord Acton (I think): "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The problem for those conservatives who quickly abandoned term limits, much like the GOP has quickly abandoned deficits, debtg and spending as real issues of principle, was that the rationale for term limits DID apply to GOP politicians (a has become even more obvius since 1994, as the GOP has BETRAYED everyone--even by their own admitssion). The arrogance of power does not depend on whether you may have been RIGHT in teh way you originally started out to change the world.

That brings us to Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, in therecent GOP debate. Gingrcih correctly noted who much POWER Federal Judges have TAKEN for themselve--way beyond that intended by the framers of teh Constitution. Where Gingrich went wrong was in his REMEDY (which is often true of Gingrich). No. The media, and leftists, got it WRONG when they accused Gingrich of some sort of "subversion" of the Constitution. But we lalready know that these ("journalists" and leftists) are the worst hypocrites who ever walked teh Earth. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said MUCH WORSE things about the Surpreme Court than Gingrich did. He threatened to PACK teh Court by ADDING to the number of justices. And he BLAMED the Sup[reme Court virtually for ruining th ecountry. FDR was ready to do much more lthatn "subpoena" Federal judges to explain themselves. Justices diied. Roosevelt was elected 4 times,. And so Roosevelt got to "pack" teh Court without ever "changing the rules". Nor have things changed. If you watch MSNBC fore even a little while, you will hear about how the Supreme Court has handed the country over to evil corporations by giving corporations the right of FREE SPEECH. As you know, if you read this blog, leftists--including the mainstream media--do NOT believe in free speech (except for them). You might want to remembe that The New York Times is a COROORATION. Again, leftists have said things about the Supreme Court worse than what Gingrich said, and have done so on the whole general issue of "campaign finance reform". But when conservatives do this, it is an ATTTACK on teh Constitution. When leftists do it, it is an ATTACK on corrupt conservative judges distorting the Constitution. Note that there is NO difference of PRINCIPLE here (in terms of the attacks on the Supreme Court, although there is obviously a difference in the substance of teh attacks).

And, in a way, BOTH sides are righ (although leftists have no problem with the POWEER of teh Federal judiciary; they just want o CONGROL it because they don't TRUST the people to do the right thing, an don't really believe in democracy). Federal judges have too much POWER. They have a LIFETIME appointment (which may once have made a LITTLE sesense, but not in today's fast-paced world), and they are not elected. But what you can't do is devise a Gingrich-type "soluton", which depends on attackng teh Supreme Court from and IDEOLOGICAL point of view (even if I think Gingrich is right in the way he interprests the Constitution, which I do). You hae to devise a "solution" which is ideologically NEUTRAL. There IS such a "soluton" (if not a complete one): TERM LIMITS. There are other POSSIBLE such solutions, such as ELECCTIONS of Federal judges, but they involve a more radical and uncertain upheaval in our system. A 12 year TERM LIMIT is enough for ANY Federal judge to have power. When a Federal judge can STOP state and Federal laws BEFORE THEY EVEN GO INTO EFFECT (as with Arizona and the California REFERNDUM on gay marriage--again, these people do NOT believe in democracy), it is entirely within the original spirit of teh Constituion to provide SOME limit on teh length of time a Federal judge can have that kind of power. 12 years is entierely reasonable. Rick Perry was teh only GOP candidate, I think, wo mentioned this idea of term limits for Federal judges, and he deserves credit for that. The GOP deserves NO credit for pretty much abanadoning term limits as an "issue", TO PROTECT THEIR OWN JOBS.

Then we come to the unfair and unbalanced network, where I again confirmed that Bill O'REily (and the whole netowork) is not worth listening to. It is no accident that teh network seems to be AGAINST any BOLD policy measures, or non-establishment politicians. This is an ESTABLISHMNT network, which is not much different than the rest of the mainstream media in pushing back against any kind of truely innovative or "non-establishment" thinking. For example, the unfair and unbalanced network has NEVER really presented teh case agaisnt that disgraceful, fraudulent "payroll tax cut". And what abut this LIE that these bills are "fully paid for"--a absurdity under any standard you want to apply except the LYING standard that the politicans created for their own benefit. Well, Bill O'Reilly addressed the Gingrich atttack on Feeral judges, and did so in the typical manner of teh unafira and unbalanced network. O'RElly said that Gingrich was right about Federal judges overstepping their bounds, but that you could not really do anyting BOLD to "interfere" with the separation of powers. WRONG O'Reillly. You are a pompous ass, and the whole network neither THINKS nor looks at the FACTS from any kind of ono-mainstream media way. Term limits for judges would be BOLD, but would NOT interfere with teh separation of powers (unless lyou think that the Constitutional Amendment--an Amendment being required to impose term limits for judges--limiting the PRESIDENT'S number of terms was a violatoin of separation of powers, which it was not).

Gingrich was right . Our system is out of balance, with Federal judges haveing entirely too much POWER. Gingrich is right that we need to do something to REDRESS teh balance, and keep power from "corrupting " Federal judges. However, we need to do this in a NEUTRAL (ideologically neutra, except as to the ideology of limiting power upon which this country was founded). way. And we can. A 12 year term limit on Federal judges would not directly interfere with their power, but it would only allow them to exercise that power for 112 years (more than enough) . This also takes care of teh J. Edgar Hoover problem for Suprem Court justiices, and otehr Federal judges, as it is somewhat routine for Supreme Court justices to "serve" into their eithties and nineties. ABSURD.

Yet, Bill O'Reilly dimissed the idea of any BOLD attempt to rein in the out of control Federal judiciary. Taht is because the unfair and unbalanced network routinely DESPISES new ideas, especially if tehy are conservative. That is why they are lining up behind Mitt Romney, as is the whole GOP "estalbishment". No, this blog does NOT support Newt. But I can't support "politics as usual" eitehr, and that is all the unfair and unbalanced network is about. It is all Mitt Romney is about. Newt is right that BOLD solutions are needed. I jsut don't trust Newt to come up with the right ones. I have followed him too long.

Can yu imagine Bill O'Reilly on the Supreme Court for 20 years? yet, that is exactly the kind of situation we have. Maybe we should have TERM LIMISS for TV ancors (just kidding) . It is probably the single BEST thing we could do for this country: to imose a 12 year term limit on ALL Federal offices not covered by Civil Service. No, it wil not "solve' all of our problems. But it would give the people a CHANCE to clear out the dead wood--including the people that power has corrupted. Thi scountry is really all about PROCESS, not the "magic wand theory of government" (wave a government magic wand and "solve' our problemss). The single BEST change in PROCESS we could make is to pass TERM LIMITS. Then, an only then, will bthe people really have a fighing chance--short of absolute collapse toward which we are heading--to take back their government from time to time.

I know. There are BOLD politicians. And there are OLD polilticians. But there are noo OLD, BOD politicians. I know. I actually stole this "joke" from the old joke about PILOTS. But it applies to the wayour politics is working, to ur DESTRUCTION. Without term limits, the politicians who SURVIVE are the ones who RISK NOTHING, wanting to keep their lifetime jobs. Fderl jusdges, on teh other hand, don't have to worry about BRI+BERY and SNOWING the people. But they alos have no check on their pwoer, and can chose to overstay their time. That was the argument FDR made against the Supreme Court justices who he accused of SABOTAGING his "New Deal". Nope. Term limits is a great idea. Too bad our system is now so dysfunctional that we cna't seem to get such an obviously good idea done. I know that politicans have a great INCENTIVE to refuse to adopt term limits (see first few sentences of this paragraph again), but the people could DEMAND it. Too bad we dont'. We really do need a MOVEMENT to IMPOSE term limits ourselves, if politicans won't do it. Unfortunately, as I have said in recent articles, the Tea Party seems to have FAILED as far as creating real change in "politics as usual". Too bad again. Hey. I am a pessimist bynature. You didn't expect OPTIMISM here,did you?

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). By the way, part of the "process' by which this country used to operate was a FREE MARKET ECONOMY, where we rejected the CENTRAL PLANNING evidenced by Soviet Union "5 year plans", where political leaders tried to DIRECT the economy from above. Too bad we have abandoned that PROCESS as well. Note that, like a democratic republic, a free market economy does not GUARANTEE good results. We just know that CENTRAL PANNING (by falllibe human beings, and sometimes by STUPID hiuman beings like Ben Bernanke), GUARANTEES ultimate BAD RESULTS> That is because when you make a mistake in cnetral planning, you ae DOOMED. And so we probalby are right noew (note the natural optimism that is part of my nature, and which I admired so much in Ronald Reagan).

No comments: