Old Ideas Are Back in the News

 

by Pa Rock

Citizen Journalist

As the nation and the world still reel from the discovery and publication earlier this week on the U.S. Supreme Court's draft decision striking down 1973's Roe V. Wade decision, there has been much discussion of ways to curb the power of what many see as an out-of-control and reactionary court.  The ideas being bandied about have all been talked about for years and then set aside, but now suddenly, with the end of accessible abortions in sight for millions of women, primarily minority women and those with limited finances, those ideas are being talked about again, this time with a sense of real urgency.

The upcoming Supreme Court decision will strike down a woman's "right" to an abortion as provided by Roe, and open the door for individual states to begin banning the medical procedure outright.     Republicans who suffer from the delusion that a majority of Americans favor restricting or eliminating abortions - when that is clearly not the case as shown by poll after poll - want to use the issue to elect House and Senate members who would support a national ban on abortion through federal legislation.

Conversely, Democrats seem to also be eager to campaign on the issue and promise efforts in a strong Democratic Congress to codify a right to abortion into national law.

In fact Democrats currently have the necessary votes in the House to make that change, but in the Senate they could likely only muster fifty-two or so votes (counting those of a couple of Republican female senators) - but the Senate has an arcane ruled called the "filibuster" which requires a super-majority of sixty votes to stop debate on a bill and hold a vote., and that filibuster keeps a tight majority in check and unable to function.  (The Republican controlled Senate conveniently dropped the filibuster 60-vote requirement for Supreme Court Justices in order to get Trump's appointments through the Senate confirmation process.)

The Senate could kill the filibuster with fifty-one votes, but two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona are both on record as opposing efforts to kill the filibuster.  

So "codification" of Roe v. Wade is being discussed, but for that to happen the elimination of the"filibuster" must also happen - and two Democratic senators stop the entire process.

There is also a big concern about the minority being in control, not only through the filibuster in the Senate, but in the election of the President through the archaic "Electoral College."  Four of the five justices who supposedly voted to reverse Roe v. Wade were appointed to the Supreme Court by Presidents who lost the popular vote but were elected instead by the "Electoral College."  Some argue that if we claim to be a "democracy," then those receiving the majority of the votes - whether in the U.S. Senate or in the national election for President, should be acknowledged as the winner - and once again doing away with the "Electoral College" is a topic of national interest.

The idea that the upcoming decision was made by only five justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, and three of whom were appointed by Trump, has also brought about talk of expanding the Supreme Court to include more members and creating a broader base of knowledge and experiences from which to make their decisions.  That idea has been around for awhile, but the current situation and backward tilt of the Court  has brought it back into the mainstream of political discussion.

Another old idea that is being talked about again is the notion of mandatory retirement ages for judges throughout the federal court system, and especially for those serving on the Supreme Court of the United States.  Congress, which is itself a refuge for many septuagenarians and octogenarians, may not relish the idea of imposing age limits on judges out of a fear that they might be next.

And another way to rid any institution of aging or dead wood is to impose limits on how long a person can serve.  Many states have set limits on the number of terms that their legislators can serve, and some have also limited the tenure of judges, but term limits have yet to be considered at the national level.  Now, thanks to abortion travesty that is about to roll down from our nation's highest court, the notion of term limits for federal judges, Supreme Court Justices, and even congressmen and senators is once again part of the national discourse.

Maybe this impending further subjugation of women by the U.S. Supreme Court will bring about some consequences that were never intended by the Justices who engineered the travesty.   Perhaps it will finally bring about some substantive changes in the way our national government is run and decisions are made, and maybe that much needed detour into political fairness will create an environment where the rights of women can re-emerge and become a dominant force in the American political scene.  Maybe, just maybe.

And maybe we have finally reached the point where we need to do more than just talk about change.  Maybe now we need to actually start changing things.

We have taken Democracy for granted too long, and the enemies of personal freedom and choice are attacking on every front.  It's time to fight back, and fight hard!

It's time - right now - to stand up, speak up, and vote - because our freedom to do all of those things is at risk!