Quotation

The New Yorker quotes right-wing rabble rouser Andrew Brietbart:

“This is the revolution,” he told his audience, before explaining that the war against the mainstream media was not only political but also economic. Newspaper subscriptions are lapsing, he argued, because readers have tired of liberal bias.

Read more

Sorry, Andrew. People haven't stopped reading newspapers because they're offended, they're not reading because they're getting their information other ways that are faster, more relevant, more in depth (and quite often from those same newspapers' websites). It was true when Obama and the Democrats were insurgent, and it's true now.

Of course, the cock can claim he brings the sunrise, but who will believe him?

The New Yorker magazine of March 22, 2010, reflects on a Supreme Court without justice Stevens. In it we read,

John Paul Stevens, who will celebrate his ninetieth birthday on April 20th, generally bides his time. Stevens is the Court’s senior Justice, in every respect. He is thirteen years older than his closest colleague in age (Ginsburg) and has served eleven years longer than the next most experienced (Scalia). Appointed by President Gerald R. Ford, in 1975, Stevens is the fourth-longest-serving Justice in the Court’s history; the record holder is the man Stevens replaced, William O. Douglas, who retired after thirty-six and a half years on the bench. Stevens is a generation or two removed from most of his colleagues; when Roberts served as a law clerk to William H. Rehnquist, Stevens had already been a Justice for five years. He was the last nominee before the Reagan years, when confirmations became contested territory in the culture wars (and he was also, not coincidentally, the last whose confirmation hearings were not broadcast live on television). In some respects, Stevens comes from another world; in a recent opinion, he noted that contemporary views on marijuana laws were “reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student.”

I was surprised, when recently discussing the Court with an educated friend that he did know know that the number of Justices on the Court is not invariantly set at nine. I learned that from Dan Smoot some 40 years ago when the John Birch Society wanted to impeach Earl Warren.

There hadn't always been nine on the Court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number of Justices at six. In 1863, there were ten Justices on the Court.

We read that various numbers of Justices comprised the Supreme Court,

Since the passage of the Judiciary Act, Congress has occasionally altered the size of the Supreme Court, historically in response to the country's own expansion in size. Membership was decreased in 1801 to five, then increased to seven members in 1807, to nine in 1837, and to ten in 1863. By 1869, Congress had reduced the Court's size to nine members, where it has remained since.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt's (FDR) New Deal legislation passed Congress, where the Democrats enjoyed a majority, the Supreme Court struck down a good number of the bills as unconstitutional.

This episode in FDR's presidency has been revisited in "Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court," by Jeff Shesol, and reviewed on line.

By then, the idea that there were only nine Justices (there are ten slots, BTW) had taken hold, and besides, FDR did not have the votes. In testing the waters whether he did or not, when FDR conferred with then Vice President, Jack Garner:

Jack Garner marched up the White House steps before the morning coolness had left the air. The President received him at once, and greeted him with a great show of cordiality. Garner told him that he had come to talk about the court fight, and the President nodded acquiescently.

"Do you want it with the bark on or the bark off?" Garner asked.

The President replied he didn't understand the country phrase, and Garner explained that in his part of Texas people asked for it "with the bark off" if they wanted the naked truth, whereas if they desired their feelings be spared they asked to have it "with the bark on." The President threw back his head and laughed his hearty laugh. He would have it "with the bark off," then, he said.

He got it. Garner informed him bluntly that he was licked, and he had best fold his tent and steal way from the court issue as rapidly as possible. The President shrugged his shoulders. He was ready to accept Garner's appraisal of the situation.

So the Court did not get "packed," as they say, and Earl Warren did not get impeached. No one rocked any boats.

The Neocons, who were coming into the Party at the time I was active in Youth for Goldwater, cautioned that impeachment, court packing, and the like could backfire. If the neocons resorted to it, one day it would benefit them, the next day, it would not. Like deem and pass, it was an expediency that could come back to haunt.

No, the neocons, ever the realpolitikers, cautioned. The neocons would work up from the precinct level to get control of the Party machinery. Cynically, the name of Lenin was evoked, but it was just for show, as they were convinced they'd beat the pinko liberals at their own game.

In the end, it seems the country does not like to make decisions,and deadlocks are just fine. Even in the Senate, a 59 - 41 vote is not enough to produce a "majority" at least in some cases. But with Congress and the President and the Republicans and Democrats stymied, maybe the Neocons were onto something by keeping the court a simple majority, where 5 to 4 did change the laws of the land ... I mean, "interpreted them."

Only the court, which the conservatives have slowly filled with their brethren, has escaped the deadlock due to its odd number.

What if the empty tenth Justice positioned were filled?

So far, there is no stomach for that, as least so long as the other two branches seem unable to move.

For now, the 5 to 4 set-up of the Court moves forward without deadlocks ... the one branch of government making decision after decision.

The neocons are moving forward and there is nothing much in their way.

John McCain says:

"Let me be very clear, I am not questioning his patriotism, I am questioning his judgement. Senator Obama has made it clear he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq.

"He has made these decisions not because he doesn't love America but because he doesn't thinks it matters whether American wins or loses."

Yeah, that makes sense. Right, John. Ramble on.

Meanwhile, as McCain talks about the Iraq surge ("That's what this is about! That's what this is about!"), Barack Obama offers a reality check, pointing out that we should focus on the Taliban, sponsors of al Qaeda and co-sponsors of 9/11.

"As commander-in-chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban," Obama said.

He said he would add two U.S. combat brigades, 7,000 fighters and support staff, and would provide an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance for Afghanistan....

..."Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan,'' he said. "Senator McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."

Do you, dear reader, really thing that this election is about a tactical surge in Iraq that happened last year?

Yeah, that'll show him!

John McCain is in favor of forced pregnancy, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.

John McCain's healthcare plan is "let the market handle it" (like it has been handling it so far), but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.

John McCain is obsessed with fighting wars and extending the war of choice on Iraq, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.

Why? Because they seem to feel that Hillary Clinton is somehow entitled to the nomination, despite the fact that she didn't get the votes.

What's dangerous for the Democratic Party is that, for many women, the eye of the storm has moved beyond Hillary or anything she does at this point. The offense has turned personal. They are now in their own orbit, having abandoned popular Democratic Websites that reveled in crude anti-Hillary outpourings -- and established new ones on which they trade stories of the Obama people's nastiness. . The women talk of being taken for granted by a party leadership that never spoke out on some of the outrageous Hillary bashing -- and despite the close race, joined the early rush to crown Obama. . .

"Many of us feel slighted," said Lynn Eyrich Harvey, 76, from Los Gatos, Calif. "We feel that years of supporting the party is unimportant, that we are to sit down and shut up -- but be sure to vote Democratic in November." Passions can change, one supposes, but the women I hear from do not see the rampant sexism, particularly toward older women, as isolated gaffes but as a systemic dismissal of them -- an enormous voting bloc that has been reliably Democratic.

"How Obama's campaign has treated Hillary will not be forgotten," Janet Rogers, 55, who runs a Bed and Breakfast in Medina, Ohio, wrote me. "I will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. My husband and friends all feel the same way."

[via TGW]

How did Obama's campaign treat Hillary? She was the one always attacking him, remember?

It was her election to lose -- she had all the advantages early on -- and she lost it. She ran a lousy campaign, reinvented herself every week, and used political rhetoric of the tone and slant that fits perfectly with Karl Rove politics. A lot of Democrats have been looking at Hillary and just saying "ugh, no more."

If things were reversed, and the African American male candidate were the establishment politician defending the DLC's control of the Party, and the woman were the new face who spoke about politics with an entirely different tone and who inspired people into believing that change really is possible, then I'm quite sure the woman would win.

Clinton is a Clinton. Clinton has baggage. But what's worse, her political style, her campaign, her rhetoric all are rooted in the 90s, and sound way too much like more of the same than many would like.

You want to vote for John McCain? Knock yourself out. And think about the Supreme Court you are leaving to your daughters and granddaughters. Think about the fraying social safety net under yet another term of thrashing. Think about the Global Gage Rule and how it's being applied at home. Think about our failing schools. Think about perpetual war. Think about the nail in the coffin of progressive values you are driving in with a vote for McCain. All because your candidate did not win.

More women will run. Women will win. This is not going to change.

But in what kind of America? Change has to happen now, or we are setting this country back even more.

Raw Story:

"I came here for the vote of every American, and our Democratic Party threw us down the tubes," New Yorker Harriet Christian said after yesterday's meeting of the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Senator Clinton is the "best nominee possible" for President, said Ms. Christian, "and the Democrats are throwing the election away. For what? An inadequate black male who would not have been running had it not been a white woman that was running for President! And I'm not going to shut my mouth anymore!"

No, there's no racism here. Noooooo. (Why not simply "an inadequate candiate"?)

No, there's no delusion here. (Take all the Michigan delegates -- Hillary Clinton still loses!) Nooooo.

Why is Hillary entitled to the nomination? How is counting a one-candidate poll "democratic"?

Maybe there really is some intolerance here for the uppity candidate -- the uppity "inadequate black male." (You fill in the epithet.)

"And they think we won't turn and vote for McCain," Christian added. She closed: "Well, I've got news for all of you: McCain will be the next President of the United States!"

Just lovely. Real class. You're leaving the party? Have fun with the Republicans. They share your values.