Since the GOP has been unable to muster the requisite support to amend the Constitution and eradicate the scourge of gay marriage, Smiling Tom DeLay and your Grand Old Party will soon be seeking to
strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear controversies for which the GOP might not like the result.
Certainly, Congress has the ability to define the jurisdiction of the lower courts, but I am unaware of past attempts to use federal jurisdiction as a tool for the advancement of social policy. The GOP gets points for creativity, if nothing else.
As the article mentions, gay marriage is first on the GOP wish list, but fortunately there's more fun stuff in the wings. Pledge cases are next, and though DeLay feels abortion is "not yet ripe," it's comforting to know that at least it's on his mind. At least this'll clear up that troublesome hurdle for nominees to the federal judiciary, right?
I thought that past attempts of the GOP to (say) eliminate filibusters for judicial nominees were beyond the pale, but I was wrong.
Could someone please tell the GOP that THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A FUCKING STRETCH ARMSTRONG. If you really think something should be so, then you should be able to -- you know -- pass laws with the majority that you hold in Congress, or (if you really think it's fundamentally important, and don't wish treat the Constitution as casually as toilet paper) actually
lead, convince people that you're right on the issue, and amend the Constitution. If you cannot accomplish your goals throught these tried and true paths -- notwithstanding your majority position, or your president's moral gravitas and ostensible support of all god-fearing, law-abiding Americans -- then you should MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.
The elimination of filibusters, restriction of federal court jurisdiction, and potentially "postponment" of federal elections in the event of terrorist attacks are not intended to be nifty levers for the achievement of your pet social policies.
That is all.
Gattigap
