Elections

Be Careful What You Wish For

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

After the Supreme Court ruled against same-sex marriage bans, senator and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz called for holding elections for Supreme Court justices.

At a glance that seems like a very bad idea, but Fox News host Megyn Kelly actually brought up a very good point in response.

Kelly then asked Cruz, "How would an electorate that twice elected Barack Obama create a court that you like better than the one we have now?"

It's absolutely true that if you poll Americans on individual topics, the nation as a whole is far more liberal than pundits and politicians would have you believe. And, based on recent polling, most Americans would have no problem electing justices who are in favor of actually upholding the Constitution and the idea of equal justice under the law.

Most American approve of gay marriage. Most Americans are pro-choice. Most Americans support things that are, at times, not fully supported by 5 out of our 4 current justices.

With that said, I wouldn't necessarily embrace the idea. There's no telling what introducing unlimited political spending could do to the highest court in the land; a chaotic scenario that we could also thank the court for.

Cruz shot back at Megyn Kelly and demonstrated that he has just as little self-awareness as we suspect.

"Who in their right mind would design a system where every major public policy issue of the day is decided not by the people, not by the Constitution, not by elected representatives, but by nine elite lawyers in Washington, D.C.?" he asked.

It is the Republican party that has endeavored to litigate nearly every policy of the Obama administration.

If they don't want the Supreme Court to weigh in, they should not initiate frivolous lawsuits that are so ridiculous the chief justice himself has no choice but to dismiss it with prejudice.

  • 1933john

    Who’in the fuck is Megyn Kelly?

  • Art Kraft

    Ted Cruz is the true Manchurian candidate for Republicans.

  • Christopher Foxx

    There’s no telling what introducing unlimited political spending could do to the highest court in the land

    Oh, I think the answer to that question is painfully obvious.

  • muselet

    Megyn Kelly—Megyn Kelly—is the voice of reason in that exchange.

    Isn’t that one of the signs of the Apocalypse?

    –alopecia

    • aynwrong

      Remember, she is how Fox News is going to court a younger audience.

      • muselet

        Because the kidz are into vapid 44-year-olds who do friendly interviews with enablers of child molesters?

        That may not work out quite as planned.

        –alopecia

    • Siege

      While she normally cheerfully tows the party line, once in a blue moon Megyn goes off the talking points, and you can almost (ALMOST) see a journalist in there somewhere.

      • muselet

        There must be a clause in her contract with Fox News Channel that says she can act sane on-camera, but no more than a specified number of times per year.

        –alopecia

  • Toolymegapoopoo

    “Who in their right mind would design a system where every major public policy issue of the day is decided not by the people, not by the Constitution, not by elected representatives, but by nine elite lawyers in Washington, D.C.?”

    Did Cruz just question the sanity of the founding fathers?

    • muselet

      Beat me to it.

      –alopecia

    • Badgerite

      Answer to his question is anyone who knew the tiniest little bit about law and how it works and what it provides to our society knows why. We always talk about the Rule of Law. We do so for a reason. It is a question of maintaining a certain consistency, logic and principle to our rules. Fairness and decency are at its core and the maintenance of the nature of our society as a republic. The passions of the day sometimes overwhelm those interests. And that is precisely why ( and certainly Scalia is well aware of this ) the courts are supposed to be separated somewhat from the popular will. And the operative word here is somewhat. Appointments to the court system, federal and in many of the states , are made by elected officials. But once on the court, you do not want justices making decisions based on their own interests or politics. You want them to base their decisions on certain principles of law. Because we are a nation of laws, not men. And we have an obligation to maintain those laws and the the core elements of our society that are maintained by them, for the next generation. The court system is not American Idol. And you wouldn’t want it to be.