In Dicta

Friday, July 22, 2005

Roberts to overturn Marbury v. Madison

From Achenblog on (humor):

Roberts to Overturn Marbury v. Madison?

Every American should give John G. Roberts the benefit of the doubt, and hope for a dignified confirmation process, even though it is almost certain that he will attempt to plunge the nation into medieval darkness. Bush's nomination of Roberts is surely part of a broader agenda: Get rid of the women on the Supreme Court, overturn Roe, overturn Brown v. Board of Education, and finally, overturn Marbury v. Madison. The conservatives will not be happy until they have a Supreme Court with the courage to rule itself out of existence.

Nowhere in the Constitution, as I recall from the time I glanced at it in the Rotunda of the National Archives, does it say that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of the aforesaid Constitution. That's something John Marshall invented, to vex Jefferson. The Supreme Court has been on the road to extreme activism since that gloomy day in 1803. The Roberts Court will let the president decide the important Constitutional questions, such as how many terms he should serve (two being laughably too few), and who should be his successor. Bush clearly cut a deal with Roberts: "I'll give you a lifetime appointment if you give me one too." The one thing that most bugs the Bush clan is that their hereditary monarchy has not yet been officially established as a matter of United States law. And Dubya is surrounded by advisers who think we need to roll back everything to roughly 1787, and then keep going, until we reach the Holy Grail of extreme conservatives: Overturning the Magna Carta.

All this stuff is so obvious I don't get why it's not in the paper.

The strange thing about Roberts is that, in addition to looking like the little man on the wedding cake, and having a J-intensive family (John, Jane, Jack and Josie -- cute to the very brink of criminality), he has an irrational hatred of toads. Note that passage in the Post story this morning, where Roberts, on the federal bench, argued that "the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California."" Buddy, who you callin' a hapless toad? Takes one to know one.


Post a Comment

<< Home