- Posted June 25, 2012 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Radical Change? Coup in US of A?
James Fallows wrote in The Atlantic Sunday that there are 5 signs that the US of A is undergoing a radical change. In the earlier article, since updated, Fallows used the word, coup, rather than radical change. The update version takes "coup" out of the dialogue.
I disagree with his premise and the 5 signs he listed to back up his hypothesis. But I leave it up to you to decide whether the US being subjected to radical change or a coup is developing.
For Fallows, it is the Republicans and the Supreme Court who are responsible for mounting the move.
* First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don't even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
* Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
* Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
* Meanwhile their party's representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation -- and appointments, especially to the courts.
* And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party's majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it -- even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party's presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.
How would you describe a democracy where power was being shifted that way?
In summing up, Fallows had this to say:
Underscoring the point, a Bloomberg poll of 21 constitutional scholars found that 19 of them believe the individual mandate is constitutional, but only eight said they expected the Supreme Court to rule that way. The headline nicely conveys the reality of the current Court: "Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection."
How would you characterize a legal system that knowledgeable observers assume will not follow the law and instead will advance a particular party-faction agenda? That's how we used to talk about the Chinese courts when I was living there. Now it's how law professors are describing the Supreme Court of the John Roberts era.
From the Cornfield, do you feel that the Supreme Court is working in secret with Republicans to mount a coup or take over our republican form of government in violation of the Constitution?