It's difficult to not be skeptical about the Supreme Court and its radically right wing turn in the past year or two. But every once in a while we are reminded that the Congress still retains the power to create laws that can guarantee everything from rights to long-standing traditions.
The latest evidence is the U.S. House passing a bipartisan bill that guarantees same-sex marriage, which now heads to the Senate. This should be a no-brainer as reality has eclipsed tortured legal theories about whether such a right can be traced to the Constitution. Clarence Thomas can question same-sex marriage for similar reasons to why he voted to overturn Roe, but the chaos of upending marriages for thousands and thousands of Americans makes even senators like Ted Cruz oppose that sort of change.
It's actually stunning that only 47 Republicans voted with the Dems on this one. Such a "no" vote seems so homophobic considering today's culture that I wonder if much of those negative votes were simply kneejerk reactions to anything favored by Democrats.
I am guessing that interracial marriages can gather even more bipartisan support (though Thomas, being IN an interracial marriage, did not question that particular decision).
Perhaps finding areas where even our divisive politics can produce some sort of agreement is just "low hanging fruit," but there is something to be said for creating some momentum for change, some energy behind finding commonalities, etc.
Analysts of the Supreme Court often point out that most of the court's decisions are not 6-3 splits... in fact, most are unanimous. Those cases are often technical and more legalistic interpretations of existing statutes, but all those decisions with everyone agreeing must explain part of why the justices seem to get along personally, though they may argue passionately against one another in dissents and decisions.
The Supreme Court desperately needs term limits, with 18 years being the favored number. This eventually would mean a president would expect to nominate two new judges in a four-year term. It's a bit diabolical that Republicans have pushed in judges in their 40s and early 50s... thus extending their influence for decades, without any connection to new political or cultural realities.
We need term limits for Senators, as well. What makes 88-year-old Chuck Grassley indispensable to Iowans? Why are we fine limiting presidents to two terms while we allow a senator from a small, overwhelmingly white state stay in power for decade after decade? Are senators more important to our system?
I suppose my enthusiasm over term limits connects with my realization that, at some point, it's time to step off the stage and let someone else "play the part."
I have read several commentaries lately that indicate that it is OLD people who are most likely to agree that term limits are important. That may not seem logical; after all, what about all that accumulated experience and wisdom?
Meanwhile, a coal and gas baron from West Virginia continues to hold up hopes for any strong American actions to fight climate change, and he has no plans to leave the stage. His successor might be even worse, but I would find some comfort in knowing that his hold on power has a clear end.
Hey, knowing he can't run for reelection might make him more likely to vote for programs that can make his grandchildren safer and more prosperous. That final six-year term for senators could become the sweet spot for legislation.
We might be able to shore up democracy by widening the number of voices at the top, if we dare.
No comments:
Post a Comment