It is not surprising that the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that struck down the nomination process of judges in New York. Four justices (Stevens/Souter and Kennedy/Breyer) wrote to say "we agree, but we know the system isn't really fair. Stevens did that annoying thing where judges say "Hey, I think it's stupid, but that's not my call." Yeah, so don't tell us. He did cite Justice Thurgood Marshall, who left the Court for health reasons a few years younger than Stevens is now. Kennedy spent more space and tossed in an O'Connor wariness about judicial elections as a whole.
Justice Stevens mentioned Scalia's "cogent" settling of the constitutional issues, though Stevens (unlike the more partisan friendly Scalia) clearly thinks the law is "stupid." And, perhaps it is. Still, I'm dubious of Scalia tidbit: "The reason one-party rule is entrenched may be (and usually is) that voters approve of the positions and candidates that the party regularly puts forward." It is unclear that my approval (except in a pretty inactive/inertia sense) per se is the main cause of the entrenched judicial nomination process which is one of the few clear cases of bossism that still exists.
The voters simply do not pay much attention to judicial races and (and count me too though I did by chance know one personally) know little or nothing about them. This underlines why the process is such a joke ... and the core concern of giving so much power to party officials. "Entrenchment" writ large also has more complex reasons than implied here. And, "Does not the dominance of two parties similarly stifle competing opinions?" is more question begging than probably assumed as well. They might not want to "go there," but that's another issue.
Meanwhile, another recent ruling underlined how the balance of power in the Supreme Court matters, this time respecting corporate power. Which is particularly interesting, is that it was a 5-3 ruling ... Breyer recused himself apparently because he has stock in the company. But, the deciding vote (the alternative was a 4-4 null vote) was CJ Roberts, who once had stock, which he later sold. Oh? This is the sort of case that led business sorts to be concerned about judicial nominees of late.
Tidbit: Look who is being saucy: "After today’s decision, one will need a crystal ball to predict when this Court will reject, and when it will cling to, its prior decisions interpreting legislative texts." Scalia? No, Ginsburg.
Anyway, apropos to the election ruling ...
Election News: Also on the election front, the Michigan primary brought a Romney win (Wyoming apparently not counting). Since the state broke party rules by having it so early, the Dems (for now) is not accepting delegates, and two of the three top candidates took their name off the ballot. [The Republicans penalized their state party by depriving them of half their delegates.] Still, Kucinich (4%) and Uncommitted received over 40% of the vote, suggesting many are not totally comfy with Hillary Clinton. Mike Gravel voters also apparently still exist, though the results I saw had him at 0%.
HC got some kudos (from some parts) for saying how "pathetic" it was that Bush is over in the Middle East begging for lower oil prices. But, the fact that the Clintons are able to powerfully criticize the Right is well known. It doesn't end matters, though it seems to me a possible trap. Her conservative aspects can be covered up by enjoying shots at even more conservative people. Style over substance. Style that might very well be nice ... if other things made it feel a bit thin.
And, let me dissent from those who imply we are all signing kumbaya, so pleased with all the Democratic. nominees unlike those poor Republicans. Some clearly are wary of one or more of the choices. I simply love how Thom Hartmann (Air America), for instance, rails against corporate power and free trade etc., but would gladly support Clinton in the general. Suddenly, she is great ... because she can talk tough about the Republicans? Please. I guess she must be much more liberal than her hubby, who also should have kiss Newt's feet for salvaging his presidency by giving him a great foil.
But, at least, I know who the candidates are. Some might get too little coverage. Still, compare that to the deep Google searches (involving obscure local papers) required to get anything on some of the judicial candidates out there. Is it Sunday yet?