June 24, 2012

Don't like the Supreme Court's decision? Propose a Court-packing plan!

It was good enough for FDR, and it's what the Washington Post is pushing in anticipation of the Obamacare decision. Jonathan Turley writes:
The health-care decision comes 75 years after the famous “court packing” effort of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.... Roosevelt may have had the right idea for the wrong reason.
Oh, spare me the bullshit. It's the same reason. You don't like the opinions. It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.

Turley announces that the best number is 19:
How would we get to a court of 19? Gradually. If Congress ordered such an expansion, no president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term. Once fully staffed, the court would have a more regular natural turnover....

Just as the philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham called for “the greatest good for the greatest number,” sometimes the greatest good can be found in the greater number. When it comes to the Supreme Court, that number may be 19.
If the greatest good is in the greatest number, why not 100? Why not 1000? Why not submit constitutional questions to the entire electorate to get the "greatest" answer?

(Man, that is one of the worst analogies I've ever seen. And even if it were a good as an analogy — that greatest good for the greatest number is like more is better — it would nevertheless depend on one's affection for the utilitarian theory of Jeremy Bentham. Do you want to take constitutional law advice from a Jeremy Bentham fan? Why not save yourself the trouble and throw out the Constitution altogether?)

UPDATE: I have a new post, delving into the reasons for choosing — of all numbers — 19.

UPDATE 2: "Jonathan Turley's civility bullshit about my calling 'bullshit' on his Court-packing plan."

143 comments:

avwh said...

How many more bad FDR ideas can the left recycle to "help" Obama??

campy said...

Why not save yourself the trouble and throw out the Constitution altogether?

You think they wouldn't like to?

edutcher said...

Somebody else that thinks not only zeroCare loses, but Zero, as well.

J said...

If the government can force you to buy a product you don't want, then there is no liberty.

The Constitution will be meaningless and null and void.

I'm not sure Jonathan Turley would want there to be no rule of law in this country. That would mean no laws protecting Jonathan Turley from having the crap beat out of him.

And I doubt Jonathan Turley would be able to defend himself very well.

A revolution formed this country in reaction to a lot less. These clowns should keep that in mind before they end up dumped into the ocean like Red Coats.

dreams said...

Well, the constitution is like what over 100 years old or something.

Michael K said...

FDR got slapped down hard after the court packing plan was attempted. The Democrats didn't even like it.

LarsPorsena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dreams said...

"Lib Writer Ezra Klein on Constitution: It‘s ’Confusing‘ Because It’s Over 100 Years Old"

wfgodbold said...

Who decides what "good" is?

Maybe the 5/6 of the country that is insured thinks it's "good" that they keep their money instead of being taxed to pay for insurance for the other 1/6.

After all, hundreds of millions is way more than tens of millions, and the greatest good is in the greater number, right?

Turley is just taking a round-about way to advocate against upholding the law!

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Wouldn't you need to have a majority in both House and Senate to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices?

John Lynch said...

A constitutional amendment limiting SC terms to 18 years is a good idea. Each Presidential term would get 2 appointments, and it would regularize retirements.

The Elder said...

Jeremy Bentham??? Who in the world would cite the proponent of a "Pig's Philosophy." After all, everyone knows that jurists are crazy. Quick. Someone do the math measuring hedons and dolars for a Supreme Court of 19!

Turley has officially lost his mind.

LarsPorsena said...

"...The health-care decision comes 75 years after the famous “court packing” effort of President Franklin D. Roosevelt..."

The FDR scheme used to be described as 'infamous'. Legal revisionists now describe it as 'famous'.

dreams said...

"FDR got slapped down hard after the court packing plan was attempted. The Democrats didn't even like it."

The problem is that the liberals learned along the way that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

YoungHegelian said...

As an ex-liberal, I remember fondly the days of my youth when American liberals (and I mean liberals NOT Lefties) gloried in their absolutist defense of the Constitution.

That idea went to the junkyard with my daddy's '68 Impala, I guess.

John Lynch said...

The US Constitution has little to say about the Court. The number of justices isn't in there at all. What FDR wanted to do wasn't unconstitutional at all. It was, however, a power grab and the other branches stopped it.

As they should today.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Liberals = Sore Losers

Whiny babies who just can't understand that sometimes you don't get your way. Sometimes YOU lose. Instead of learning a lesson from LOSING, they stamp their itty feet and throw temper tantrums.

Lawyer Mom said...

And don't look now, but Peter Orszag says voting should be compulsory. http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/24/peter-orszags-case-for-compulsory-voting/

Court-packing and compulsory voting are working out marvelously for the Venezuelans. Come on, everyone, let's join together now to create a new democracy.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/12/13/venezuela-ch-vez-allies-pack-supreme-court

Tregonsee said...

Remember the "Court of the Union?" It was a proposal to create a court superior to the SCOTUS, consisting of the chief justices of the 50 states. It was "popular" when "Impeach Earl Warren" signs were in vogue. It was especially popular with the segregationists.

Big Mike said...

Why not save yourself the trouble and throw out the Constitution altogether?

Please, Professor! Don't give the dingbats any more ideas!

edutcher said...

If he's concerned about turnover, amend the Constitution and put in term limits for the Federal judiciary (not just Congress).

When the Constitution was written, the average man lived to his fifties, so the Justices would have rotated like steel belted radials.

LarsPorsena said...

If the Court's numbers can be 'packed' to 19, it's only logical that it can also be shrunk to 3. I think the numbers should vary at the whim of each administration. The number of Justices should be as malleable as the law.

edutcher said...

Lawyer Mom said...

And don't look now, but Peter Orszag says voting should be compulsory.

Another great idea from the Euros; you don't vote in two elections, you lose the franchise for life.

So all the slugs over there vote themselves huge pensions; here, ACORN and SEIU have to sign up Mickey Mouse and resurrect Judge Crater to keep the Demos in.

John Lynch said...

Why not have one justice?

Seriously, why not?

Maybe make it an elective office?

Cedarford said...

While the spin has long been that the noble judges stood up to nefarious executives (popular in the 60s and 70s as only the lawyers and journalists could save us from tyrant leaders and evil capitalist exploiter) - in the case of FDR.
That the masses adulated the berobed fossils at SCOTUS and backed them against FDR.

The truth is FDR had political and popular backing to resist the old guard at SCOTUS trying to overturn the whole New Deal he was elected on.
While the Elites were aghast with the notion of Court-packing.

Fortunately, the Justices were not stupid. The alternative to FDR was fascism, militarism, or communism. The public, in the Great Depression - was ready for change and in no mood to "do nothing" when they saw government-led initiatives taking much of Europe and Asia out of their economic Depressions.

They sort of "moderated" and ended trying to reverse the 1932 ELection by judicial fiat.

This was called "The Switch In Time, That Saved Nine".


Today, court packing is a stupid solution. The 9th Circuit is festooned with judges - yet botch case after case. Better solutions exist.

Better we go with 10-year appointments to all Federal judicial jobs..with renewal by straight up Senate vote, no filibustering or renewals bottled up in Committee. With judges over 70 having to pass annual physical and cognitive awareness exams. (Or following a disabling accident or illness)

LarsPorsena said...

"...The alternative to FDR was fascism, militarism, or communism..."

I thought the alternatives to FDR were Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon and Wendell Wilkie? The history books I have ain't worth shit.

dreams said...

"And don't look now, but Peter Orszag says voting should be compulsory."

Who becomes our President is already decided by the least informed voters, the independent and undecided voters and that would make it worse.

Rabel said...

Oddly, Bentham is avaiable for comment:

Two heads are better than one

Take him out for a spin

Please avoid any distasteful references to Justice Ginsburg.

dreams said...

"Why not have one justice?

Seriously, why not?

Maybe make it an elective office?"

Kind of like another President, I don't think so.

John Lynch said...

Why not have 19 Presidents?

Roger J. said...

I didnt do Rabel's link but I suspect it Mr Bentham in little closet with his head on his lap.

Which is better than most legal commenters whose heads are up their ass.

Roger J. said...

Other propositions for term limits could be shooting one third of the justices along with three members of the senate that voted to confirm--would make a great reality show and give new meeting to voting them off the island. Confirmation, in my deranged scheme, would be much more problematic.

Astro said...

The right aphorism can be so reassuring, when you can mold it to fit your prejudices. It's like the ontological proof of God's existence. It's a perfect proof, if you already believe in God.

Freeman Hunt said...

Nineteen sounds precise. That must be why he picked it.

traditionalguy said...

The inane Jeremy Bentham was the first Libertarian. He and J. S. Mills had it all figured out, and the both saw humans as interchangeable, disposable parts in a machine they were anointed to run...Good grief! It's Obama I.

I also have an idea. When a decision is not unanimous, then the Justices have a paint ball tournament until one side wins. That makes as much sense as Turley Tunes' excuse for thought.

Rob said...

In other words, according to Turley we should bend it like Bentham.

caseym54 said...

I have a modest proposal:

The Senate should agree that, come Jan 4th, cloture requires only 55 votes and Congress should pass a law that adds that two more Justices to the Supreme Court, effective the same day.

Then whoever wins can have their way. The Democrats just have to promise to run Obama.

traditionalguy said...

I've got it. Just appoint Newt Gingrich next chance and he will destroy them from the inside. Turley is not really trying.

--G. said...

Um . . . I don't think any of the federal circuits have fewer than 9 judges, and no circuit has collapsed as a result of en banc review.

Old Dad said...

I think 9.5 would work best.

The half-Justice, of course, would have no mathematical influence on SCOTUS decisions; moreover, said Justice would be selected from Congress by the President.

I'd call her the Pelosi Justice. What a great way to improve the Congress.

lemondog said...

2 to cancel each other out.

Larry J said...

This is completely off topic and address to the host. When I just selected your URL to come to this website, I got a block message page saying this is a known fraudulent website. The page claimed to be from Symantic. I selected the option to come here anyway.

You might want to look into this matter. I suspect shenanigans.

Frankns said...

This whole "argument" has nothing whatsoever to do with "argument." It's strictly about what the Left will do to get what it wants. And the word for that is "anything." Period.

Another word for that would be "lawlessness." And one history book for that would be the French Revolution and the unravelings of Madame Lafarge.

Jay said...

Remember, recycling ideas from over 60 years ago makes you a progressive!

Hazer said...

The Constitution doesn't actually say the the SC members should get life appointment, it is silent on the issue. It is interpreted that way, but could it just have been an omission or it simply was never thought of by the founders. I wonder who could rule on the issue as well since the SC has a big interest in it staying the way it is now.

D.D. Driver said...

As a former student, I can vouch that Turley has had this idea for at least 10 years. This doesn't make it a better or worse idea, but it does mean that the idea is not a reaction to Obamacare or any other specific case.

Personally, I don't think increasing the number of judges is such a bad idea. It would mean that each justice would have a little less power, and I'm cool with that. With somewhat lower stakes we would have fewer justices hanging on until their 80s and 90s until "their party" holds the presidency. Again, not such a bad thing in my book.

Also, Turley is the farthest thing from an Obama-fan. He is one of the few academics that correctly take Obama to task for being worse than Bush on civil liberties.

I find Ann's post rather cheap and knee-jerk. Definitely not the quality and thoughtfulness that I have come to expect.

I mean come on, "why not just throw out the whole Constitution"? Is this serious. How much restraint did it take from going full-Godwin? Because, after all, you know who DID throw out the whole constitution?

MarkD said...

Let's subject the decisions of the court to a referendum. Does anyone think Kelo would pass a vote? Why do we allow our lives to be affected to such a degree by people we don't choose?

SteveR said...

There's a "living" constituion and there's a dying one.

Jim in Virginia said...

I keep hearing that 5-4 decisions are bad. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. So Miranda (5-4) was bad? I assume if SCOTUS overturns Obamacare by, say, 6-3 that will end the handwringing on how little the public trusts SCOTUS?
As for having 19 (or 23, or 78) justices, well, if Romney wins and the GOP takes the Senate, sure. Let's do it.

Cedarford said...

MarkD said...
Let's subject the decisions of the court to a referendum. Does anyone think Kelo would pass a vote? Why do we allow our lives to be affected to such a degree by people we don't choose?

============
Contrary to rabid libertarians, the people bought out were mostly house-flipping speculators, or people owning multiple homes that saw a good buck to be made trying to extort huge buyout prices at the peak of the house flipping bubble.

The area was slum, blighted, sited next to a quite odiforous sewage plant the City runs. For stupid reasons, the City decided not to condemn the area as blighted..which would have precluded lawsuits.

But thanks to the litigation, the big investors pulled out..that area in New London CT is now considered a wasteland full of rats and two-legged vermin. And New LOndon is like many other older and Democrat cities in the North where development and business investment is seen as an attack by the enemy....broke and basically tits up.

The real estate speculators and house flippers made out very well. Had they held on to their properties - most would have been ruined in the real estate bubble collapse.

Jacques Cuze said...

I don't see you taking on Jonathan Turley's actual arguments. Nor do I see any evidence you read his blog or his column or understand his viewpoint, which is not nearly as liberal as you seem to believe.

You mainly carp about the number 19 and cast stones as liberals.

This is not one of your better efforts.

Coketown said...

I think eighteen justices would be better. Or one. Yes, one justice; that's hilarious. "In yet another 1-0 decision...when will the American people say 'enough' to the blatant, brazen partisanship of this court?" But with eighteen justices, there would potentially be many 9-9 decisions. That would be quite funny also.

But anyway, after trains and windmills and now a bunch of lefties all hot-to-trot about court-packing, can we start calling them retrogressives? That's what they are.

Mark O said...

Those cases, like Roe, Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Bd of Ed. were wrongly decided?

Cedarford said...

MarkD said...
Let's subject the decisions of the court to a referendum. Does anyone think Kelo would pass a vote? Why do we allow our lives to be affected to such a degree by people we don't choose?

============
Contrary to rabid libertarians, the people bought out were mostly house-flipping speculators, or people owning multiple homes that saw a good buck to be made trying to extort huge buyout prices at the peak of the house flipping bubble.

The area was slum, blighted, sited next to a quite odiforous sewage plant the City runs. For stupid reasons, the City decided not to condemn the area as blighted..which would have precluded lawsuits.

But thanks to the litigation, the big investors pulled out..that area in New London CT is now considered a wasteland full of rats and two-legged vermin. And New LOndon is like many other older and Democrat cities in the North where development and business investment is seen as an attack by the enemy....broke and basically tits up.

The real estate speculators and house flippers made out very well. Had they held on to their properties - most would have been ruined in the real estate bubble collapse.

Seven Machos said...

How many posts will we now see excoriating Althouse for this post "not being one of her better efforts," or an paraphrase thereof? We have at least two already. I put the over/under at 10.

Also, I am not much of a numerologist but, mostly for metaphysical reasons, I believe that the number of Supreme Court justices should always be a prime number. So, 19 works very well. One of the reasons the Supreme Court is encountering such backlash is because its number of members is nine, which isn't prime. It's even a perfect square. What did you expect?

Also, there are too many Gemenis right now and not enough Libras.

wyo sis said...

Every time a scheme to fundamentally change the way things are done in government should have to wait for the next time the other side is in power to be implemented. That way we'll be able to detect instantly whether the issue is simply politics or has actual merit.

John Lynch said...

Tradition!

garage mahal said...

I'm just wondering if the Roberts court will rule on what's politically bad for Obama, or what's financially good for the 30 billionaires that now run this country. Decisions decisions!

wyo sis said...

Or, we could undo one of the non-bill of rights amendments every time we want to add a new one. The 17th would be a good one to throw out.

Stephen St. Onge said...

John Lynch said...

        "A constitutional amendment limiting SC terms to 18 years is a good idea.  Each Presidential term would get 2 appointments, and it would regularize retirements."


        Agreed.

Hazer said ...

        "The Constitution doesn't actually say the the SC members should get life appointment, it is silent on the issue."


        Wrong.

        The Constitution says that Judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior."  Any automatic expiration of a term after a fixed number of years is NOT "during good behavior."

John Lynch said...

garage-
if 30 billionaires run the country, who are you voting for?

samanthasmom said...

An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee.

garage mahal said...

Oh, and yes: court watchers "in the know" are tuned into just which way Justice Thomas will go in this ruling. He seems like such a happy guy! And his drunk dialing anti-ObamaCare Tea Party wife is of absolutely NO influence on him. None!

SteveR said...

Name the 30 Garage. If they are running the country why did they hire The Zero?

Chip Ahoy said...

Thank you for capitalizing Tea Party and for not saying teabagging wife. See, now that's class.

LarsPorsena said...

5 to 4 decisions = bad.
10 to 9 decisions = good.

John Lynch said...

Lefties get all down on democracy right after they lose an election. Don't worry, it's temporary.

Seven Machos said...

If I was billionaire #31, I would be mighty fucking pissed right now. I'd say: how come I am not part of this secret cabal running the country?

Note also that the number 31 is prime. Coincidence? No way, pal. No chance.

CLH said...

I would like to point out that Prof. Turley, while decidedly on the liberal side, is not advocating a court packing scenario. He is advocating an increase in the number of justices, and makes good arguments as to why the current configuration makes little sense. While I'm sure he would love to see the healthcare acts sustained, he did argue for no more than two selections per presidential term. Now, once you do the math, one President could end up doing four nominations, and if a party stays in office more than two terms, then that could lead to the court packing scenario from the FDR era. He does make a good point in arguing for the justices to practice in the appellate courts, to help prevent the insularity of the current courts. (For disclosure, I'm a libertarian myself, and don't always agree with either of the two Profs who's blogs I read the most, Turely and Althouse)

Seven Machos said...

CLH is number three toward the over/under. Also prime!

Also...


...is not advocating a court packing scenario. He is advocating an increase in the number of justices

Hilarious. No, baby, I didn't say I want to fuck you silly like the dog you are. I said I want to make sweet love to you all night long.

Rabel said...

D.D.Driver,

You're right that Turley has been pushing this idea for a while. The earliest reference I can find is 2002.

But don't overlook the obvious agenda of the media, including the Post, that led them to publish this article at this time.

They are building a case against the validity of the Court's expected rejection of Obamacare.

Turley's argument that the Court is undersized and power is concentrated in too few Justices is just another timely placed brick in the wall.

Althouse has, I think, previously noted the current hit job on the Court. The Post's latest brick may have banged her on the head a little and caused her to miss his previous writing on the subject.

Coketown said...

I wasn't going to read the op-ed but eventually did. Plan A was to go take pictures of that Colorado Springs fire that's burning with a vengeance in town, but anywhere with a decent vantage point is blocked off, and the smoke and haze make telephoto lenses unusable. Plan B was to watch porn, but today's porn is so stale and boring I actually decided Turley's childish, tedious op-ed was more enjoyable. (This is becoming a more and more common occurrence, with porn consistently losing out to things like Battlestar Galactica re-runs, Downton Abbey, and bocce ball. I really hope it is the studios causing this and not old age. Farewell libido, 1986-2012.)

Anyway...regarding the op-ed. Turley's complaints are all variations on one theme: power is too concentrated.

He cites an opinion poll showing most Americans think life-long appointments give justices too much power. And as we all know, the court's role is to flatter public opinion. That's why it was established--to be in constant accord with the majority's whims and passions. Like duh.

He twice pulls an odd rhetorical trick in which he vests all the courts power into first one and then five justices. ("Unelected" justices, I should add. Who do these people think they are? They aren't even elected! God, if this isn't unconstitutional, it should be.) Turley's logic is, I guess, that in 5-4 decisions, one vote could have changed everything and therefore has all the power. But like Obamacare's 60th vote, EVERY majority vote is the 5th vote. I guess this is why he switches things up when raising the specter of Bush v. Gore--a specter (or dog-whistle. whichever.) that will forever haunt American liberals. In that case, five "unelected" justices had supreme power. But, really, in a country of +300 million people, is the difference between five and ten really that great? No. The answer is no. In 10-9 decisions, ten justices have supreme power; or, using his earlier logic, one justice has supreme power. In 11-8 decisions, two justices have supreme power. Turley's complaint is not satisfied with the inclusion of more justices. Whether 9, 19, or 1,900, there is still an absurdly small number of "unelected" justices exercising extraordinary power over 300 million souls.

I also like how frequently Turley uses some phrase like "many of the court's problems" or "dysfunctions" but never identifies what those problems are or why they're important--and then explains how other countries' courts don't suffer those as-yet unidentified problems. Certainly not Japan. (Japan, I think, has bigger problems considering they DON'T EVEN HAVE JURIES!) And Germany has 16 justices. But Germany's justices are limited to terms, and Turley never argues for setting term limits. He's arguing numbers. Also, Germany's court is one of the most intrusive, activist courts in the world. It doesn't even wait for a lawsuit to decide if a law or agency is functioning outside the bounds of the constitution. It just kind of goes for it. Is that what Turley wants from the Roberts court? Who knows.

So if anyone can clarify what Turley finds so problematic about nine justices that wouldn't exist with nineteen, I'm all ears. If anyone can explain how nineteen justices would have changed the 2000 election, get at me. I'm free. Lord knows I'm not watching porn or anything. Maybe the last Harry Potter movie. But certainly not porn.

John Lynch said...

I think Althouse's point is, "Why bring this up now?" Why are liberals pushing court reform at this very moment?

John Lynch said...

Here's a similar proposal, minus the court-packing.

Maguro said...

We know that 5 of the 30 are the Queen, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, the Vatican and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up, but who are the other 25? I suppose the Koch brothers have to be in there, but that still leaves 23 unaccounted for. Who on earth could they be? Hopefully garage will enlighten us...inquiring minds want to know.

Coketown said...

Maguro said...

I suppose the Koch brothers have to be in there, but that still leaves 23 unaccounted for. Who on earth could they be?

Well there's Warren Buffett and George Soros...Michael Bloomberg and the Google losers. If a group of owls is called a parliament, we might say a group of billionaires is called a court. We might even say there's a Supreme Court of 30 billionaires, with a right-wing and a left-wing. We need to identify the one swing billionaire who decides how the 30 billionaires will act. They must act in unison, obviously, or else garage mahal's statement about 30 billionaires running the country is just a petty delusion. Surely it can't be that. GM is so stable and mild-tempered.

Jason said...

Why not save yourself the trouble and throw out the Constitution altogether?

The Constitution rocks when Democrats are in the majority.

When they arent, its just a piece of paper that doesnt have any real meaning.

John Lynch said...

30 billionaires

Here's the talking point.

cubanbob said...

The real problem isn't the court. Changing the numbers won't make a difference. The real problem is junk legislation by congress, the state legislatures and municipalities. I know its just too much to expect legislators to craft concise, coherent legislation that on first reading is in conformance to the constitution.

Now just imagine if every bill prior to being passed in its final form were to be submitted to the counsel of its choosing for a review to see if it even is constitutionally permissible. And that each legislator were to receive the opinion memorandum on it before voting. One amendment that ought to be passed is that congress or any legislative body in the US cannot except itself from any legislation it passed and none of them can pass legislation that only applies to them.

As for mandatory voting, what an incredibly stupid idea that is. Instead lets get back to basics and let only taxpayers who are otherwise qualified to vote have the vote. Since all legislation at some point has a cost, lets those who paying the freight have the vote.

leslyn said...

19 is the correct number because it is the only score that cannot be achieved in cribbage.

madAsHell said...

Critical Judicial Theory
It's not justice, until I say it is.

MadisonMan said...

When there is a problem, the solution is obvious: Expand the size of the Government!

Obviously!!

Pogo said...

For the last 70 years, the Constitution has been mainly honored in the breach, thus whether 19 or 900, you're gonna eat your goddamn broccoli, so open wide.

Kirby Olson said...

If it's the greatest good from the greatest number could we just return to voting? You know, dimpled chads and so on? Couldn't each one of us be a kind of final, Supreme Court justice?

t-man said...

I think we should have 19.3 justices. If were going to buck tradition, why stick with boring old traditional round numbers.

ed said...

An alternative to increasing the number of justices, and pensions we have to pay for, we could require in any 5-4 decision that all justices have to play Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock in a single elimination ladder tournament.

Winner decides.

And that makes about as much sense as the other alternatives.

garage mahal said...

Hopefully garage will enlighten us...inquiring minds want to know.

Oh quit playing fucking stupid. It's not exactly a secret, since you know, they're bragging about it.

I worked at a golf course for a summer after coming back from bumming in Vail. [Winters were skidding and splitting firewood. $60.00 cash per load per day!] I worked my way up somehow to mowing greens and tees. When I mowed greens I had to change the pins/holes. I'm a creative guy, so I set the holes where I thought these cocksuckers who have been playing this 9 holer for 40 years would appreciate. But NOOOOOO!! Bitch and moan. Bitch and moan. It's tooooooooo hard!

So I wonder why our new Koch/Adelson Overlords are always looking for the cheap and easy way out. Bitch and moan! Bitch and moan!

Seven Machos said...

Like the Apostles, I am afraid I don't understand Garage's Parable of the Changing Pins.

But I am sore afraid for Garage this week. Sore afraid.

Pogo said...

In which garage shows that, no matter who is footing the bill, he knows better than the simpletons actually paying, those goaddam morons.

He knows what golf they should play, what union early retirement they should fund, and what doctor they should see, for he is Garage.

Tom said...

Of course, Bentham also dismissed the concept of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts."

Turley's much stupider than I thought.

Maguro said...

I worked at a golf course for a summer after coming back from bumming in Vail. [Winters were skidding and splitting firewood. $60.00 cash per load per day!] I worked my way up somehow to mowing greens and tees. When I mowed greens I had to change the pins/holes. I'm a creative guy, so I set the holes where I thought these cocksuckers who have been playing this 9 holer for 40 years would appreciate. But NOOOOOO!! Bitch and moan. Bitch and moan. It's tooooooooo hard!

So I wonder why our new Koch/Adelson Overlords are always looking for the cheap and easy way out. Bitch and moan! Bitch and moan!


Cool story, bro.

Seven Machos said...

I get it now. I have seen the light!

Wait'll Garage tells you about his time doing adjective work on the New York Times crosswords. He made every day as hard as Saturday.

I made the words where I thought these cocksuckers who have been doing crosswords for 40 years would appreciate. But NOOOOOO!!

On the other hand, it's easy to see why Garage remains such a staunch leftist. After all, look how hard it is for people to find jobs or have any material comfort in their lives these days. The challenge is so wonderful.

garage mahal said...

He knows what golf they should play, what union early retirement they should fund, and what doctor they should see, for he is Garage.

Oh come on. The pins were changed every other day. Where's the challenge! [that's for 7M who is a little slow on the uptake].

t-man said...

Jeepers! I just saw the biggest spider I've ever seen (outside of a museum) run across the carpet in my basement. Seriously, it was huge!

Also, because I've been waiting for a cafe, but can't wait any longer, I've got squirrels that have somehow gotten into my siding (possibly into some space between the walls. How do I get rid of them? I'm going to bed now, so I look forward to reading some solution in the morning.

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- So many great, obvious jokes you just missed. I am sorry for you.

Not a literary person, I guess.

Tim said...

"...or what's financially good for the 30 billionaires that now run this country."

John Lynch said...

"30 billionaires

Here's the talking point."


I, for one, am gratified that Garage Mahal, one of the stupidest people on the entire internet, has conceded, on June 24 (!) that Romney has already defeated the affirmative action hire.

For if, as Garage Mahal claims, the "30 billionaires that now run this country" really do, and they're behind Romney, it's game over.

Even the moron Mahal must understand that logic.

PatCA said...

Mr. Turley also represents the oddball polygamous family portrayed in Sister Wives, a show that sounds only slightly less horrendous than Teen Mom, both of which, I admit, I have not watched and never will, so maybe he is the victim of some esoteric brain disease where he is attracted to the idea of multiples as a way to solve every societal problem.

Either than or he's just a goof.

Blue@9 said...

Must be a bitch when the billionaires stalemate at 15-15. I propose we up the number to 31 so the 99% no longer have to deal with gridlock and uncertainty about how they're to be exploited.

Of course, then we'd get 16-15 and that 31st dude will have all the power, a frickin king-billionaire.

Goju said...

What is wrong with you people??? The 30 billionaires are the descendents of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ. Do none of you know of the true meaning of the Holy Grail?

Shame on all of you!! Look what your lack of knowledge has driven Garage to.

AJ Lynch said...

"Parable of the changing pins" Heh- good one.

Tim said...

It's pretty clear the Left is in full-blown, piss-their-pants, measure-out-a-length-of-rope, turn-on-the-gas-oven-and-close-the-kitchen-doors-and-windows panic and, I'm loving every minute of it.

I really hope the Court's decision is as they obviously fear: full repudiation of the PPACA.

Obviously, the bigger reason is, that decision is necessary to defend the historic reality of freedom in America; but in the near term, just watching an entire political class go on suicide watch is political theater to which I so very much want an orchestra seat.

I can hardly wait.

AJ Lynch said...

I think I did learn something today. Two things actually. If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, it is due to racism against the President. And if AG Holder is found in contempt, it is due to racism against the AG and the President.

Marvel Goose said...

Whatever the decision, it will be the last one handed down for the term. Then they'll all rush to their packed cars and leave town -- just like the judges for my hometown Future Homemakers of American Beauty Pageant!

Daddy Binx said...

I was going to suggest reducing the number of justices to 3.141592... but decided that would be irrational.

garage mahal said...

At least The Supremes never have to worry abut healthcare. They already got it!

Fruthermore: Galtians like Ayn Rand and Ron Paul are principled, and they never would take something evil like social Security.

WAIT: both of them took/take Social Security?! No way! Nobody could have predicted.

Goju said...

Or Opus Dei...or Illumanati... Bilderbergs...Knights Templar....Masons???

Seven Machos said...

Don't forget Hitler, Garage. He had health insurance. And you do, too. Just like Hitler.

Therefore, you are responsible for Auschwitz.

John P. Squibob said...

Why not save yourself the trouble and throw out the Constitution altogether?

Darling, that's what they want!

Maguro said...

I'm now thinking that the Parable of the Changing Pins is an example of the Peter Principle. Thoughts, garage?

Tim said...

"Fruthermore: Galtians like Ayn Rand and Ron Paul are principled, and they never would take something evil like social Security."

Dear God, thank you.

Garage Mahal is the gift that keeps on giving!

Illiteracy, broadly speaking, is his long suit.

"Fruthermore: Galtians..." two fuckups in two words. Outstanding.

Crimso said...

"I'm a creative guy, so I set the holes where I thought these cocksuckers who have been playing this 9 holer for 40 years would appreciate."

To be fair, the game is hard enough without some unelected bummer going out of his way to make it even harder. What probably chafed them the most was that they were paying your wages, and that was the service they got.

Tim said...

"Thoughts, garage?"

Don't tax the poor guy.

His capacity, and abilities, are, obviously, limited.

It's just not fair.

Tim said...

Sub-headline at Drudge: http://www.drudgereport.com/

Supporters Slow to Grasp Legal Risks...

Indeed.

...Slow to grasp...

Exactly right.

Slow to grasp.

NONE of this is an accident.

Crimso said...

"Galtians like Ayn Rand and Ron Paul are principled, and they never would take something evil like social Security."

Not familiar with the sudden appearance of the character Ragnar Danneskjöld?

Tim said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/us/past-denials-of-vulnerability-raise-health-act-what-ifs.html?_r=2&hp

"Adversaries said the law’s proponents had been too attentive to liberal academics who shaped public discussion. “There’s very little diversity in the legal academy among law professors,” said Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor and a leading thinker behind the challenge. “So they’re in an echo chamber listening to people who agree with them.”

Do tell.

leslyn said...

Crimson said,

"To be fair, the game is hard enough without some unelected bummer going out of his way to make it even harder."

What, we have to elect greenskeepers now? If you don't like the pin placement, do you have a recall? Do you have to go to the DMV for the right ID to get onto the course? What happens if YOUR greenskeeper gets resdistricted to the back nine?

You billionaires sure make your leisure time complicated.

Coketown said...

At least The Supremes never have to worry abut healthcare. They already got it!

Well, two of them are dead, and the others did fairly well for themselves. So, no, they don't have to worry about healthcare.

But they were prescient enough to write a song about Obama! You might want to learn the tune, GM. You'll be singing it soon:

Some men are heroes
Some men outshine the sun
Some men are simple, good men
This man wasn't one

This man
Wasn't one

And I won't miss his moods
His gloomy solitudes
His blunt and thoughtless style
But please don't get me wrong
He was the best to come along
In a long, long while.

Dustin said...

I liked the Instapundit proposal that no more than 5 justices can be law school graduates.

I would love to see a couple of engineers or MBAs on the Court. Nothing stopping that now, legally, but for some reason they mostly seem to be Ivy League educated lawyers in practice.

crosspatch said...

Haven't read through the comments but I believe the rationale for a larger number of justices is a court that changes more quickly with cultural changes.

What is the average rate of replacement for Supreme Court justices? If you have an increased number of them you get a more frequent replacement. That means younger members being added to the court at more frequent intervals.

This gives the political left in the US an advantage right now because the political left controls the public school system, academia, the entertainment industry, and mass media. The odds are that a more recently born member of the court will have been well-indoctrinated by the left before they even begin to practice law.

This allows organizations such as the North Dakota Study Group to potentially have a faster impact on the Supreme Court.

I didn't follow the link to the article, either, but was he also arguing for an expansion of the Circuit Courts of Appeal, too?

Blue@9 said...

It's interesting to note that a liberal finds issue with a secretive body of unelected and unaccountable officials, and his solution is to increase the size of that body. No wonder this country has issues.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the liberals ever get a solid five seat majority. You think Turley will still call for expanding the court? You think anyone in the media will complain about the legitimacy of 5-4 decisions?

damikesc said...

Lets say the mandate alone is tossed. Couldn't somebody just file another suit demanding it all go away due to the lack of severability? SCOTUS would be hard-pressed to avoid that decision.

Rusty said...

Jezus, Garage having your period again already? take a Mydol and a tampon and realx. take comfort in the fact that 30 billionairs atleast know how an economy is supposed to be run. Not some addlepated Chicago ward healer who thinks money grows on voters.


wv hemendme 3(prime)

Largo said...

@daddy binx:

But it would be so . . . transcendentsl!

TANSTAAFL said...

"Liberalism has become a cargo cult to the New Deal"

-Jonah Goldberg

mischy said...

hairdressing equipment

How I wish the government would want the people's opinions or pulse rating before mandating some laws. They should if the majority thinks it would be for the good of all.

Largo said...

How I wish spammers would die.

Rusty said...

Fruthermore: Galtians like Ayn Rand and Ron Paul are principled, and they never would take something evil like social Security.


Even for you, that's stupid.

Pogo said...

I, for one, am not buoyed with confidence that the SCOTUS will reject any or all of Obamacare.

I hope they will, but c'mon.

They can take your house (Kelo), force you to pay into financially unsound 'retirement plans' (SSI), disallow drinking large glasses of soda, redefine marriage, sell mortgages to people who cannot afford them, ...on and on and on.

There is very little left they can't do. Why not this?

I hope I am wrong and that the lefty wailing and gnashing of teeth is based on inside knowledge about the discussions in SCOTUS.

But I am mentally preparing for the worst, because the worst is all this country has seen in the past 70 years.

Paco Wové said...

"full-blown, piss-their-pants"

James Fallows is in full-blown pants-peeing mode here, with a multi-decade conspiracy theory thrown in, centering on that evil criminal mastermind, Buuuuussssshhhh!!!

(Of course, Fallows is too august a media personage to allow mere readers to comment on his pearls of wisdom.)

t-man said...

No squirrel advice? Thanks everyone.

Nothing said here will change the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court, but it might just get the damn squirrels out of my walls!!!

Matthew Sablan said...

Wait. So, 30 billionaires rule the world, but some how, an upstart revolutionary was elected president against their wishes, but now, now they will fix it this election?

Guys, don't you think, maybe, those 30 billionaires... I know, this may be a bit of a sacrilege, but bear with me... if they exist, don't you think that maybe they bought out the first president since forever to not accept public financing? I mean, I'm just suggesting that maybe, the guy who wanted more money might have sold out to 30 shady billionaires.

As opposed to the side that, you know, didn't sell out. I'm just saying, when 30 shady billionaires are running things, I look to the sell out, not the party that didn't sell out.

Scott M said...

I'm just saying, when 30 shady billionaires are running things, I look to the sell out, not the party that didn't sell out.

So, to put it another way, you're saying "I, for one, welcome our new 30 billionaire overlords"?

X said...

WAIT: both of them took/take Social Security?! No way! Nobody could have predicted.

well, they did pay into it, unlike someone working for cash under the table.

furious_a said...

Three it is!

...then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.

...so it is written, so shall it be done.

Scott M said...

If Obamacare goes completely south on the administration/Dems, how much pressure behind closed doors do you think they will try and put on Justices to retire so they can appoint a new justice or two before Obama get's landslided in November?

I know that's really far-fetched (the appointment part, not the landslid part), but even if it were within the realm of possibility, would the Democrats be able to get one through the hearing and appointment process in time?

Matthew Sablan said...

Any justice who retires between now and Nov. is going to get stonewalled by Congress until the next president is sworn in, so I don't see any arm twisting so much as being resigned to their fate.

wyo sis said...

t-man
Try those ultra sonic devices. There, a solution that can be tried without packing the court.

Steve Koch said...

I have been wondering if Ginsburg would retire when Obama loses but I figured the GOP senators will slow play Obama's lame duck nominee until after Mitt takes office.

I definitely hope that scenario happens because it will expose the partisan nature of at least some of the supreme court justices.

MTF said...

The basis of these lefty court complaints is the fear of elections. American voters haven't voted the way these particular writers want, and court appointees have been subsequently very disappointing. Utopia is so hard to create!

A worrying aspect of this sort of criticism is that lefties tend to complain about imagined behaviors they themselves advocate for the the left. Complain about "executive privilege assertions to hide misbehavior" right up until the moment it is ideologically necessary for their side. Same about violations of the war powers act (see Libya), gunrunning to foreign groups (F&F), tax collections (see Rangel, Geithner et al), insider trading (it's OK when Congress does it), crony capitalism. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Talk of a "coup" is therefore worrying, as an indicator of future lefty behavior. We are close enough now, what with the President ignoring the legislature and established law, but this sort of talk is very concerning. What happened to a new, and more civil, rhetorical tone?

rick rogers said...

Prof Althouse,

That was the best take down ever.

Congrats!

rick rogers said...

Jonathan Turley is simply a fucking idiot.

raholloway said...

Haha it's amazing to me how flat out stupid lawyers are sometimes. I had a couple of real idiots my 2L year, but at least none of them took their stupid to the Internet.

The Supreme Court hasn't even ruled on the health care law yet you ****ing moron.

Rajesh Kumar said...

Nice blog. Thank you for sharing. ASHOKA PACKERS AND MOVERS is well established reputed and professionally managed company having own branches and network all over India.
Packers and Movers Hyderabad
Packers and Movers Gurgaon
Packers and Movers Pune
Packers and Movers Delhi
Packers and Movers Bangalore