"impeach bush" and more

At the moment, "impeach bush" is far more valuable as a rallying cry than as a goal. When we take it just one step further, it becomes obvious. Rally enough troops, and "impeach bush" becomes a goal. Stopping with impeachment, or even removal from office, would be tantamount to folly, and eventually even pernicious. I'm cynical enough to know that even removal would matter little less than a first step.

The transfiguration of our political possibilities requires far more. Quite candidly, if this nation is to continue as a last best hope for humanity, transfiguration must occur.

Here's where the "and more" comes in. In another article in my blog, I advocate my political party hierarchy's setting up their own Internal Affairs Department. This institution would function in a way, very similar to that of an internal affairs department for, say, New York city's.

Here in this space, I'm describing two more goals I'd like to see achieved.

The next goal, I describe as "the Scalito Amendment". Lately, the left wing has been screaming that the administration of "dum'ass botch" has been violating the Constitution by making "Silly Putty" (r) of the concept of inherent checks and balances. Through the Scalito Amendment, the concept of inherent checks and balances gets re enforced. Here it is in rudimentary and indispensable terms.

After a Supreme Court justice has served, say, FIFTEEN (15) years, that justice shall come under review by the House of Representatives, who shall then either allow or disallow FIVE (5) more years of service.

Okay, dear Reader, you've just perused the proposed amendment in "rudimentary and indispensable terms". Now, here's my thinking behind that amendment.

Currently, after a justice, nominated by the president for the Supreme Court, receives the appointment by the Senate, that justice is in there for life. In point of fact, there is no check on that justice. After all, the appointment is for life. I believe it matters greatly that Supreme Court justices should keep, in mind, that they serve, ultimately, at the pleasure of the people. In as much as the House of Representatives is the "people's house", then it is only fitting that the people through their duly elected representatives have the duty of the ultimate check on any justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

As for my other proposal, the basic idea, which at the moment is admittedly half-baked, comes from Hollywood, the world's dream factory ... some people might consider that a tad ironical. Specifically, I have in mind the movie A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Like the nerd, for which I'm quite often mistaken, I was impressed by the first fifteen minutes of the movie, and by the last fifteen minutes.

In the first fifteen minutes, the actor portraying John Forbes Nash jr, prior to the latter's doctorate, does rather rough justice to Nash's intellectual travaux. Mr Crowe gives the audience a convenient, albeit fictitious, clue to how Nash gained the insight that led to the latter's doctoral thesis. And in the last fifteen minutes, the movie presents the audience with a pretty decent notion of the magnitude of Dr Nash's intellectual contribution.

Just before the ending credits roll, the screen is filled with gilt script that implicitly directs the audience to marvel at the power of that contribution.

I say let's harness that power to help our legislators, at whatever level of governance (municipal, state, federal) make far more efficacious decisions with regard to both allocation of resources and pertinent taxation.

oh, alright (!) already, so, I'm omitting certain details ... aaay, c'mon, gimme a break ... in fact, give my numerous devoted fans a break ... even for them, the preceding text is quite a mouthful. And how about for first-time visitors? Surely, they deserve a break, do (?) they not.

toodles
....../
.he who is known as sefton


APPENDIX -

promised punchline - HIS LIPS ARE MOVING

APPENDIX -

here's a note of confutation that was well thought out:

Maximus Clarke wrote:
Hello,

Some problems that I see with your amendment:

The House is the more "emotional" half of Congress. Its members are
elected every two years instead of every six. They tend to react to
rapid
changes in public opinion. The Senate is slower and more deliberative
and
cautious. This is why the Senate is charge of reviewing presidential
appointees and judicial nominees, not the House.

If your amendment had been in place when Newt Gingrich controlled the
House, some of the more liberal justices could have been removed by
Newt's
radical Republican compatriots. In fact, since the GOP has controlled
the
House since 1994, ALL of the liberal justices might have been removed
by
now.

Your amendment would reduce the independence of the judicial branch,
which
is exactly what the Republicans have been trying to do for a long
time.
(For example, some of them want judicial decisions to be reviewable
by
Congress.)

For all of those reasons, I don't think I can support it.

Max

You can just link to the main page of the blog:

http://subintsoc.net/situationroom