Santorum’s Totally Incoherent Ideas on Reining In SCOTUS

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled against conservatives, the usual hue and cry about “reining in” an “out of control court” is rising up from the right-wing fever swamps. Rick Santorum, as usual, has an absolutely incoherent and contradictory position based upon his own rank ignorance of the subject.

He starts by complaining that the Supreme Court has injected itself into politics. Funny, but he didn’t mind that one bit when the court overturned campaign finance reform in Citizens United. On the legal challenges to Obamacare, Santorum demanded that the court inject itself into politics. The Supreme Court considers lawsuits filed against legislation that has been passed, often in politically controversial cases. It isn’t even hypothetically possible for the court not to be involved in politics. Even better, guess what his solution is to make sure the Supreme Court stays out of politics? He says Supreme Court judges should face retention elections every few years. Oh yeah, that will keep them out of politics, having to face elections. Are you really that dumb, Rick?

Given his next position, I’m afraid the answer has to be yes. His next reform is that Congress should pass a law requiring the Supreme Court to take every single appeal that is filed. Rick, how about stepping out of that fantasy world you live in and joining me in the real world for a minute, a world in which the Supreme Court gets about 7000 cert petitions a year. They accept about 1% of them. The Supreme Court’s term is nine months, or about 190 or so working days. If they were required to take every case, that would be about 36 cases per day. If they worked 12 hours every day, they would be able to devote all of 20 minutes to each case — for oral argument, reading the lower court records and briefs and writing their opinions. That’s an ingenious idea you got there, Rick. Just brilliant.

This man thinks he should be president. I wouldn’t hire him to run a night shift at Taco Bell.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • tbp1

    Santorum’s Totally Incoherent Ideas on Reining In SCOTUS Practically Everything

  • Doug Little

    If they were required to take every case, that would be about 36 cases per day

    If it’s good enough for Judge Judy.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Well, sure, if the court is all lazy old folks. But put in some fresh, new, young Liberty University grads and they will give 500% and knock out that legal logjam!!

  • StevoR

    Stinky Santorum from the swamp sure has ideas that just reek!

    This klown is really running for President and no one has told him how ridiculous he actually sounds with the slightest inspection of what he says? Man either has to have the worst advisors ever or none at all. Or maybe he just doesn’t listen to them?

    A lot of the Rethugliklan candidates sure are making sure they disqualify themselves from contention in the eyes of any reasonable folks early on arent they?

  • otrame

    Santorum does not think those are viable ideas. He has constituents who think those are viable ideas.

  • U Frood

    It’s amazing that they have the time to go through that many cases to pick out the important ones. I guess it’s mostly their assistants weeding out the uninteresting ones, but even reading summaries or recommendations and voting on which to hear has to be tedious,

  • Mr Ed

    I see a common theme in the rhetoric coming from the GOP hopefuls, they make loud bombastic statements knowing they are meaningless. As president they would amend article III knowing full well the president has little to do with amendments. They would pass laws telling the court what could and could not do knowing full well that this violates separation of powers and would be struck down. IMPEACH -while possible it is extremely risky even for a Republican purist.

    I think all these speeches boil down to little more than stirring the base hoping to bring in a few dollars.

  • John Pieret

    Why does he think making the Supreme Court inject itself even more into every aspect of the law, society and politics would limit its impact? The only thing I can think of is that he is angry that SCOTUS let lower court cases overturning SSM bans go into effect in many states where, surprisingly enough, the sky didn’t fall. Of course making SCOTUS grant cert in those cases wouldn’t make it grant stays on those decisions.

    I know, trying to figure out the rationales of irrational people is a pretty fruitless task …

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    If they were required to take every case, that would be about 36 cases per day. If they worked 12 hours every day, they would be able to devote all of 20 minutes to each case — for oral argument, reading the lower court records and briefs and writing their opinions. That’s an ingenious idea you got there, Rick. Just brilliant.

    I know, right? They’re judges, not Public Defenders.

  • raven

    This man thinks he should be president. I wouldn’t hire him to run a night shift at Taco Bell.

    He is also a lawyer. A guy with a law degree that doesn’t know any law. A former US senator that doesn’t have any idea what is in the constitution.

    This happens a lot. David Brat, Cantor’s replacement, is a professor of economics that doesn’t know any economics. Jindal is a Brown biology grad that doesn’t know any biology. Broun (sp?) from Georgia is an MD that doesn’t know any science. Michele Bachmann, also a lawyer, who these days isn’t sure which universe she lives in.

    All examples of Fundie xian Induced Cognitive Impairment, a serious syndrome.

    PS This syndrome can be explained simply. Overreliance on Confirmation bias, Committment bias, Cognitive Dissonance, lack of reality testing, and the Theory of Limiting Cognitive Resources.

  • tfkreference

    In fairness to night managers at Taco Bell, they have to deal with the bar rush. The morning shift is the easy one!

  • theDukedog7 .

    The issue isn’t politics, the issue is the law. These 5 “justices” simply broke the law, just as a judge who fabricated a law to umprison an innocent defendant would be breaking the law.

    We are in a Constitutional crisis. We have a majority on the court that simply vilolates the Constitution without compunction or shame. They are criminals, and millions of Americans are coming to understand that.

    The irony is that SSM was winning anyway, the legal way, via the democratic process. These 5 “justices” simply wanted to bypass the legal processes and fabricate constitutional law.

    They and their supporters need to be held accountable under law. There is a growing consensus to treat this decision as it should be treated–as a crime.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    dukedawg, *yawn*

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    I’m willing to bet Dukedog’s daddy, or granddaddy, said exactly the same things about the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka decision, and the Loving decision. Lots of other Southerners of that generation sure did; and libertarians still do.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    And come to think of it, didn’t some other idiot who called himself “a little common sense” say the same thing about Abe Lincoln?

  • D. C. Sessions

    These 5 “justices” simply broke the law, just as a judge who fabricated a law to umprison an innocent defendant would be breaking the law.

    I know, it’s terrible how often that happens. Why, in 1967 all nine Supreme Court Justices conspired to do the same thing in a very similar case. Every one of them should have been impeached and imprisoned — which would have taught the rest of the Federal so-called “Judiciary” a lesson about the limits of “judicial independence” (which is not, please note, in the Constitution.)

  • colnago80

    Re raven @ #10

    And then there’s the blogs resident cocksucker Schmucknor, who, like Broun, has a medical degree and knows no science.

  • StevoR

    @12. Duke’s Dog’s Shit : Evidence? Actually the overwhelming consensus is the exact reverse -that the equal marriage decision was right and overdue.

    Citatation :

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11701633/Gay-marriage-now-legal-across-America-live.html

    Read the headline and weep Dogshit. Then scroll down a fair way pats pictures of lots of good Americans celebrating and a few bad ones reacting badly to where the graphic shows 60% approval to 37% opposed and trending the right way. Love has won and hate has lost, Hate would be your side Dogshit.

  • zenlike

    theDukedog7,

    So, which law was exactly broken here? Please be specific.

  • U Frood

    And who does this “growing consensus” include?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @BEE:

    [I’m willing to bet Dukedog’s daddy, or granddaddy, said exactly the same things about the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka decision, and the Loving decision.]

    I don’t know their opinions on such matters, but there was a lot of racism in my town when I grew up. I come from a background of Democrats–to vote for a Republican was considered treason, and we hated Catholics too.

    I grew up in your shit Party with your shit ideology. That’s why I’m a conservative Republican Catholic–I know your perspective intimately.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    I don’t know their opinions on such matters…

    You never heard your father or grandfather talk about political or social issues? Once again, I call bullshit.

    You’re regurgitating a past generation’s ignorant bigotry, almost word-for-word, and you don’t have the guts to admit it.

  • zenlike

    So no laws were broken, then? Where you just straight up lying Dukie? Isn’t that against your religion’s rules?

  • abb3w

    I’m still inclined to amending the Constitution to limit terms on the SCOTUS. However, the term I’d suggest is 30 years (inspired by a letter from Jefferson to Madison on the national debt), after which they are retired to emeritus status at full salary (unless they choose to do so sooner). This would continue to provide insulation from the political process, yet tending to give a limit on the (metaphorical) voltage difference between the court and the electorate.

    Even still, the attitude shifts for Gay Marriage have been rapid enough that the Obergefell ruling would likely still have been remarkable. Had this rule applied, even Scalia still would not have been booted (and only 14 would have)… but would not last until the 2016 elections. With a 20-year span, there would have been rather more shifts of seat, but with timing leaving the outcome still in doubt.

  • https://www.facebook.com/hansrichard.grumm Hans-Richard Grümm

    @24: The German Constitutional Court has a similar system. Judges are elected by 2/3 majorities by either house of parliament, hold office for 12 years and cannot be re-elected.

  • Nick Gotts

    There is a growing consensus to treat this decision as it should be treated–as a crime. – Michael Egnor, slanderous liar, egregious hypocrite, blatant racist, Malthusian and master of false equivalence@

    This is a more obvious lie even than most of your statements. A clear majority of all groups except Republicans and conservatives support the SC ruling, in the only poll reported so far.

    Meanwhile, you have yet to specify what law (what part of the Constitution) you claim was broken, and how, by the SC majority. Of what crime, speciifcally, do you claim they could rightly be convicted, under what statute?

  • lorn

    There is something incongruous about someone so irrational that it makes you think they should, for their own safety, be on the end of a leash speak of reining other people in.