RE: What Would Reagan Do?

I guess I don't have a problem with term-limiting the courts, but the terms need to exceed any elected tenure so that they do not become de facto elected offices. Subjecting the federal bench to the vagaries of democracy would produce a system like the one we have here in North Carolina: degenerate, ineffectual, and political. On a federal level, a system like that would likely be even more tyrannical than the current one.

As for a Congressional veto of the Supreme Court, they already have one and Levin should know that. In fact, they have a type of veto that exists nowhere else in our system. They have a preemptive veto. Congress can vote to limit or remove the court's jurisdiction in any case it hears. It doesn't require a supermajority either. I wonder why Levin thinks that if Congress rarely ever has the will to vote to limit jurisdiction, why they would exercise a post facto veto. This is purely political maneuvering. It would allow Congress to do what it does best: knee-jerk. Congress could sit by while the courts ruled and then spring into action if there was public outcry after their decision. It is mere window-dressing to allow Congress to appear to be doing something.

Levin is supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer and scholar, but sometimes I wonder about him. He came up with some of the twisted arguments to support the obviously unconstitutional intervention of Congress in the Terry Schiavo case. He also occasionally posts on Free Republic and I find myself shaking my head at some of the things he says. It seems Levin is fine with bending the Constitution as long as it suits his political leanings.