Raving But Not Drooling

On my way home from Dogger’s yesterday evening, I stopped in at a convenience store and saw the headline on a local rag that announced the death of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The first thing that popped into my mind was just how great George Bush’s legacy will be. In addition to his invasion of Iraq, he will put two justices on the Supreme Court, at a minimum. I mean, it’s only 2005 and, barring the repeal of the 22nd amendment, he will be in office until January 2009. A conversation Dogger and I had while driving yesterday comes to mind. We’d been discussing the federal government’s delayed response to the disaster down south and we were both incredulous that the government did not seem to have done any preparation ahead of time. I mean, you’ve got the National Weather Service tracking the hurricane every second so why weren’t the National Guard and relief services mobilized the second Katrina took a turn towards New Orleans? I mean, you station people and supplies far enough inland that they wouldn’t feel the brunt of the storm but close enough to move in immediately after the hurricane has struck.

D: "…I mean, whenever the Bush administration gets caught, all they do is lie. With Iraq, we kind of have to take their word on things but with the hurricane, the Bush administration will say, 'Oh, things are getting better, relief is coming in…' and then you turn over to CNN and see the reporter standing next to a neighborhood in five feet of water and people begging for water and food."

Me: "I saw a thing on CNN where a reporter was interviewing people in Mississippi who were hardcore Bush voters. They talked to a guy who lost his house to the hurricane and they asked him about Bush’s response to the disaster as he sat there on the ruins of his house and he said, 'I love and support President Bush but I don’t think he’s done a good job here.' The sad part is that the Republicans will win again in 2008."

D: "They still love him because he talks to God. I seriously think he’s schizophrenic."

CNN plays in the background as I type and I find it disgustingly humorous to see people praising the Christian deity that a loved one was found alive or praying for supplies. That the disaster happened speaks volumes about the efficacy of prayer. Anyway, back to the Supreme Court.

The rallying cry for the Left is that Bush's nominees to the highest court of our land will imperil abortion rights. There can be little doubt that this is true but I dislike the notion that a candidate's opinion on this issue should be the sole criterion used to determine a nominee's fitness for service on the Court. The fact is that Bush is going to put at least two people on the Court, including the Chief Justice. My rallying cry here is mid-terms, mid-terms, mid-terms. If you're going to have a Court with people who want to apply the law then the Left should concentrate on gaining control of the Legislative Branch. If you live here in Madison, then you know the names of the streets on the isthmus and downtown: Johnson, Brearly, Paterson, Gorham – these are all the name s of the men who signed the Constitution:

Go. WASHINGTON--
Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King

Connecticut
Wm. Saml. Johnson
Roger Sherman

New York
Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey
Wil: Livingston
David Brearley
Wm. Paterson
Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania
B Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robt Morris
Geo. Clymer
Thos. FitzSimons
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson
Gouv Morris

Delaware
Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom

Maryland
James McHenry
Dan of St Thos. Jenifer
Danl Carroll

Virginia
John Blair
James Madison Jr.

North Carolina
Wm. Blount
Rich'd Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson

South Carolina
J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler

Georgia
William Few
Abr Baldwin

And what does Article I Section 1 of the document they ratified say? It says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Congress makes the laws. Congress can override a Presidential veto. Congress can impeach the President. Congress declares war. If you want something to be the law of the land, there is a mechanism in place to make it so. In a very real sense, the Supreme Court is not your advocate. Perhaps in the broadest sense of it being a part of the government and the government deriving its power from the people to act for the people it is, but in a proximate sense, the Supreme Court's duty is to apply the law. But it is our Congressional representatives who makes the laws and are your advocates. And, more importantly, you are your own best and most important advocate. There is so much about our government that irritates me to no end. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in lecture a few months ago, the electorate had, in 1796, to choose between the Chairman of the American Society of Arts and Letters and the founding President of the American Academy of Sciences for the off ice of President. Today we have a chief executive whose only qualification for the job was that he came from a wealthy family. Congress abdicated their Constitutionally- delegated authority to declare war to the President. Believe me, the list goes on. My point, though, is this: if you want something to be the law of the land, focus on the lawmakers. Vote in the mid-term elections next year. Write your Congressional representatives. To piss and moan about Roberts is to miss the point. To dissect the words of the President is to get sidetracked. Tell your representatives to get some balls and stand up for their campaign pledges instead of focusing on re-election. Tell them that they'll get re-elected if they do their job well. I am thoroughly in favor of concentrating on taking back Congress, taking back the lawmaking branch of the government.

Alright, I've run out of time for ranting. More later, perhaps.