And yes, "coup" was the correct word to describe this:
• First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don't even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.• Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
• Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
• Meanwhile their party's representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation---and appointments, especially to the courts.
• And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party's majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it---even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party's presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.
How would you describe a democracy where power was being shifted that way?
I dunno. How does "Bush-League Democracy" sound?
Corporate money, media consolidation, a rigged Cosa Nostra financial system, cynically even-handed journalism, a cowardly opposition party, a populace traumatized by the events of 9/11, a Presidency which claims nearly unlimited powers unto itself, and the relentless bleating of a money-drenched rightwing noise machine---all have played a part in America's evolutionary crawl towards an increasingly militarized, authoritarian surveillance state wrapped in the bright-colored bunting of free markets and healthy liberal democracy. Even today's immigration ruling, while observing some limits on state conduct, expands the police power of government, and one which cannot really be held accountable for its actions so long as it has "reasonable belief" that immigration law has been violated. Think about it: There was a time when granting local police the power to require citizens to produce identification on demand, absent evidence of any violations of state and local law, would been thought a dangerous and reckless abuse of authority, the kind of harassment-and-shakedown routine you'd expect to see on display in a Mexican border town. Yet today, this power was granted to every law-enforcement agency in America by an unelected body---yet even some liberals are hailing this development as of a triumph of common sense and decency. The fact that this power might possibly be used by less scrupulous agents to engage in a practice of ethnic-cleansing-in-everything-but-name does not seem to have dawned on our Serious Persons quite yet:
A routine traffic stop to cite a broken taillight can now prompt deportation. If a legally residing driver or passenger looks or sounds foreign and isn’t strapped with passport and birth certificate, an outmoded license photo might be a one-way ticket to Border Patrol.And unlike airport security, these measures do not racially profile with the aim of protecting law-abiding citizens. At best, SB 1070 is an iron-fisted extension of the Census Bureau; at worst, it’s a declaration of ethnic cleansing.
The Federalist Five has ruled wisely and well. They tossed out the more frivolous provisions in AB 1070 while giving a big thumbs-up to it's most toxic element. As noted elsewhere today, the political autocracy that our financial autocracy has installed just handed itself another big chunk of power to wield at will over its subjects. Only in an culture where the reigning political discourse valued the authoritarian imperative above all other governing options would this ruling be praised as a safe and prudent compromise.
---Vitelius
Comments