"""What's most disturbing here is the increasing trend of right-wing Justices inserting themselves ever more aggressively into overtly political disputes in a way that seriously undermines their claims of apolitical objectivity. Antonin Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney, dubiously refuses to recuse himself from a lawsuit challenging the legality of Cheney's actions, and then rules in Cheney's favor. Scalia has an increasing tendency to make highly politicized comments about purely political conflicts, most recently defending torture in an interview with 60 Minutes. As part of Clarence Thomas' promotional efforts to sell his book, he spent substantial time building his conservative icon status with the furthest right-wing media elements -- even parading himself around on Rush Limbaugh's radio program -- and turned himself into the food fight of the week between Democrats and Republicans."""Greenwald's name does not rank too high on our list of linkable e-pundits, but Greenwald raises an important point on the politicizing of the Supreme Court. Nearly all of the current crop of conservative judges have made blatantly political statements. Il Duce Scalia's probably the worst, as with his proclamation a year or so ago that Bush/Gore Florida 2000 was a done deal and Americans didn't need to worry their pretty heads about it anymore since the Big Daddies of SCOTUS had taken care of it, and declared the Truth of the matter, notwithstanding the numerous independent researchers and newspapers (including the WSJ) who concluded that tampering had occurred. Scalia, reputedly a conservative catholic, seems fairly unaware of St. Augustine's thoughts De Mendacio (not to say Old and New Testaments):
Greenwald covers the problems fairly well, but he doesn't really discuss judicial review itself, and the related issue of judicial and prosecutorial immunity. That would like require a bit of reflection if not ...analysis, however dull it might seem to the Snarkosphere. Really, the issue revolves around the old regress of the law which the Founders discussed at length. However un-hip, un-PC, or un-read Jefferson may be, he seems to have understood the potential for a Scalia-like quasi-monarchist court:
"[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.
Dull dreary legalese---but a fairly serious issue, Rube. Is the state safer with a judiciary beholden to no one except itself, or by having the court subject to the Congress and Senate? (many Mericans don't realize that SCOTUS was not part of the original Constitution). Jefferson knew enough about British and French ancien regime history to realize that liberty was NOT to be entrusted to a panel of magistrates (as Locke had asserted as well); most of the anti-federalists were in agreement on this issue, but Adams and his judge-henchman John Marshall prevailed. The jacobins of 1792, of course, had other, somewhat extreme solutions for magistrates, part of "le deuxieme état".