Burt Prelutsky takes on Supreme Court term limits, the impeachment of George W. Bush, and the U.S. Senate.
Because the entire process of appointing Supreme Court justices has become so politicized, many people would like to see the job description changed to include term limits. They seem to think that things would get better if, instead of lifetime sinecures, the justices would be limited to, say, 10 or 12 year appointments. Frankly, I’m of two minds on the subject. It all depends on whom we’re talking about. I’m certainly in no hurry to give Scalia and Thomas the boot, whereas in the case of Souter and Ginsburg, I’d gladly help them pack and drive them to the airport.
There’s another radical notion floating around these days. It seems the Democrats think it would be a swell idea to impeach President Bush. They seem to think he’s been over-zealous in waging the war on terrorism. I disagree with them. As I see it, if they’re wrong, we could all be killed by Islamic fanatics; if Bush is wrong, somebody in the F.B.I. might discover I just checked Somerset Maugham’s Theatre out of the public library.
I don’t happen to believe the president has broken any laws. It’s also my belief that his enemies would be just as willing to impeach him for jay-walking or splitting an infinitive if they could pull it off. I understand. That’s politics. The thing I can’t figure out about this plan of theirs is whether they are totally unaware of the rules of succession as spelled out in article two of the Constitution, or if they really like Dick Cheney as much as I do.
Although I am undecided about term limits when it comes to federal judges, it’s a whole other matter when it comes to senators. And forget term limits, I’d do away with them entirely. What purpose do they serve? What do those hundred buffoons do that couldn’t be handled just as ineptly by that crowd of stiffs in the House?Â
When our forefathers were setting things up, they sought a way to balance things off so that the smaller states wouldn’t be totally overwhelmed by those states with much greater populations. But, let’s face it, it’s a notion whose time has come and gone. Between them, Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, have about as many people as Kentucky, but they have 12 senators, while Kentucky only has two. And Kentucky has only about a tenth the population of California. Does that seem fair? It sounds downright un-American to me.
Besides, if we got rid of all that senatorial deadwood, we’d save a bloody fortune. I’m not just talking about their salaries and pensions, either. Every single one of them, even those who complain the most about the pork in the federal budget, controls a virtual fiefdom that would have made an old French nobleman drool with envy. Ted Kennedy, alone, has more courtiers and assorted flunkeys waiting on him than Louis XVI ever dreamed of; and as with Louis, it’s the poor taxpayers who are footing the bill.
Before dismissing my idea out of hand, pause just a moment and picture life without Charles Schumer, Robert Byrd, Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but the mere thought of a world in which John Kerry would be just another aging gigolo is enough to make me swoon.
I realize that along with the absolute dregs of humanity I just listed, I’d be eliminating employment for a handful of decent conservatives. But that’s okay. I can live with it. I say the fewer politicians of any political stripe, the better.
A bright fellow named Paul Rinderle wrote to me recently, suggesting that the moral arc of a Washington career could be divided into four parts: idealism, pragmatism, ambition and, ultimately, corruption.
I wrote back to say that, by and large, I agreed with his analysis. I just felt it was a shame that the typical politician went through all four stages in a single afternoon.
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
Read more articles by Burt Prelutsky
Mr. Prelutsky, I couldn't disagree with you more on your viewpoint of the usefullness of the Senate. You are correct in stating the Founding Fathers purpose of represenatative government, but its need in 177 is no diffeerent than today. We are SUPPOSE to be a collection of states with state power and a limited Federal Government. Ending the only equal represenation of states we have in the branches of government would end states rights. You might as well propose ending state borders, and just have a federal government with no state or local officials. If your goal is to save money, that is the route you want. I am entirely against this for the priamary reason of not having any say in the decisions that effect me and my family the most, locally. Geographically, 85 percent of this country voted for Bush in 2004, the thought of discarding the vision of our Founding Fathers for representative government by state is terrifying.
In regards of the Supreme Court, I would like to see one thing done, similar to what California does with judges on a ballot, but in a different way. I would like to see a Congressional vote take place on each Justice every ten years in which a super majority (2/3rds) vote would be needed to remove a sitting judge. The question before Congress would be simple, "Does this judge interpret the constition of the United States of America?' This way judges like Breyer or Ginsburg who have repeatedly used foreign law to promote agendas can be properly exposed as the creators of law compared to what we ask of them to be, interpreters of law. The ability for a justice to cherry pick what he/she likes or dislikes about foreign law and somehow use these personal views to twist and contort the U.S. Constition should be an "impeachable" ( I am sure this is the wrong term) offense.
Concerning the Bush impeachment, democrats would follow a successful campaign against Bush with a similar one to Cheney. It would not be a Gerald Ford scenerio. The disdain for Cheney may be more than any President or VP in history. The only thing that comes close may be how the Confederates felt about Lincoln. Without a GOP Congress, these procedings would be well under way. Bring this full circle, to the original topic of the need for a Senate, and what we would have in our mid-term elections this year would not only be a vote on Congress but a fight to impeach the President. My view on term limits– absolutely. With plans in place like the McCain-Feingold incumbent retention plan, (also known as Campaign-Finance Reform), any plan to encourage a turnover of representatives would be well recieved. The major issue with this would be the likelihood of even more corruption ( yes it is possible). Many Congressman could see their time coming to an end and sell off votes for the big bucks at the end of a term with no regard to what is best for the people he represents.
Comment by Dan Behrens | February 23, 2006
Dan, I thought only liberals lacked a sense of humor about politics–that is until I read your post. An attempt at critical inquiry of a satirical essay kinda misses the mark. More comical than that is the fact that you forgot to mention that Senators didn't get elected by popular vote until the 17th Amend. was ratified in 1913. Before that they were elected by the a state's legislator. Thus, the Senate has become redundant.
Comment by Publius | February 24, 2006