Scalia: Citizens Shouldn't Be Able To Vote For Senators

[DearAbby]

Just how radical is Justice Scalia? Well, for starters he doesn't believe that citizens should have the right to elect their U.S. Senators.

In a colorful debate with Justice Breyer, Scalia came out strongly opposed to the 17th Amendment, a position that places the Justice to the far, far right of even many of his conservative colleagues on the Court. According to Scalia "There's very little that I would change. I would change it back to what they wrote, in some respects. The 17th Amendment has changed things enormously. We changed that in a burst of progressivism in 1913, and you can trace the decline of so-called states' rights throughout the rest of the 20th century."

For Justice Scalia, the preferable way to elect representatives to the Senate is not to grant citizens the right to vote directly on their representatives, but to have state legislatures appoint Senators. It's a view that is hostile to voting rights generally and one, given Scalia's opinion in Bush v. Gore, that should really come as little surprise.

Contrast Scalia's hostility toward individual voting rights with his embrace of corporate speech rights, or individual gun rights, and it's easy to see how his jurisprudence reflects less of a constitutional fidelity and almost entirely a hard right conservative political agenda. At 74, Scalia is the longest sitting Justice currently on the Court and one who wields a tremendous amount of influence with the other conservative members. Given these recent public comments, it is clear just how far to the right the Court has lurched.

http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/scalia-citizens-shouldnt-be-able-to-vote-for-senators/

[gratuitous]

1. Maybe it's time for another amendment

And subject Supreme Court Justices to a confidence/no confidence bid every five years or so. Have another plate of something cholesterol laden, would ya Tony?

[Wwagsthedog]

17. How about every year?

[maxsolomon]

2. i'll go further:

there shouldn't BE a senate.

[pinto]

11. Why so?

:hi:

[maxsolomon]

33. A bicameral legislature is not neccessary to a democracy

and our Senate is as plutocratic as the House of Lords, but utterly lacking any sense of noblesse oblige. filled with tottering grandees doing the bidding of capital (and it has always been so), they prevent virtually all progressive change in this country. as they were designed to do by the wealthy, white, land-owning, sainted founding fathers.

add to that the disproportionate power it gives to states that don't have an adequate population to justify statehood. some concession to population would alleviate the injustice (CA, NY get 3 senators each, WY, AK get 1, or share 1 with MT), but it is, at its core, undemocratic and unsalvageable.

[pinto]

36. Lots of points there. A couple of things, off the top of my head -

The House and Senate were both established at the same time by the country's founding fathers. Is one exempt from your assessment and the other not? I see your point, but the Senate isn't the sole construct that those guys developed.

My understanding, structurally, is that the Senate was specifically designed to balance (a common meme in our national framework) the power of individual states, based solely on population, at the federal level. For what it's worth, I think the whole federal set-up is based on checks and balances - from the House, the Senate, the Executive and "all the way" to the Supreme Court.

:hi:

[maxsolomon]

37. I agree with your points

but I'm just really really pissed off at the Senate. Furious when i think about it. Teabaggers think they're mad at the government - they're not, compared to those of us who were awake during the Bush Junta.

And i'm also pissed at Fate for striking Teddy Kennedy down when we finally HAD 60 democratic senators. he would have been Reid's spine, i'd wager.

[laughingliberal]

46. +1 nt

[Yupster]

67. The United States

was foremed from a union of the Thirteen States, not the people within them.

The Senate was formed as the insurance policy of those states giving up rights to the federal government to make sure their interests would be maintained.

Therefore senators were chosen by state legislatures, not the people.

It was a way for the states to make sure the federal goivernment didn't get too powerful as the Founders realized all central governments tend to try to accumulate power over time.

Once the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, the states were stripped of their shield against the federal government and the senate was made obsolete.

There's no reason to have it anymore. We're looking for ways to save money? There's one.

[ladjf]

20. Yours is the best suggestion. nt

[ironrooster]

24. Max, I get where you are going and I like it.

Combine that with term limits in the House; e.g., (2) max 3-year terms(instead of unlimited 2-year terms), and a publicly funded (and truncated)voting season.

[Tx4obama]

27. You're kidding, right?

That would be disastrous.
The House needs members that have been there for awhile.
It takes a couple of years before any of the newbies even know how to do things correctly.
You can't have the important committees being chaired by newbies.
There is a strong argument for folks with knowledge and seniority remaining in the Congress.

[maxsolomon]

34. i'll buy the publically funded campaigns, though

except grifters like Christine O'Donnell will figure a way to earn a living off it.

[maxsolomon]

35. doop

nt

[SoCalDem]

40. how about 3 per state... 1 D, 1 R, and 1 "other"

that way theoretically, every group would get some representation :)


or why two? why not just 1?

why not 4?

our population is a lot more than when the rules were set in stone..

[Yupster]

64. Here Here maxsoloman

After the 17th Amendment there isn't any reason to be a senate. It's just an expensive way to tie up what the House wants.

[Javaman]

68. While I see your point

and understand you are pissed at the senate, your idea would basically eliminate any voice at all from the small states. And since the north east is primarily made up of blue states, many of those same states would suddenly lose a voice.

Personally, I like my crazy idea better.

We hold a lottery ever 4 years.

Everyone in the nation is a participant.

Anyone can be elected rep or senator.

After 4 years, no reelections. A new person comes in.

Everyone 18 and up is required to enter.

And as a wild card, dead people can enter too. (considering many of our current congress people appear to be zombies anyway and seem to serve no apparent function)

The President would be elected from one of those people who served their 4 years as rep or sen. And they would be elected via the general public through a general vote.

In the event of a tie, there are no run offs, just another vote. If that ends in a tie, a coin flip determines the winner.

We will have a wild crazy government of change and failure all the time. No career politicians, no special interests will have enough influential leverage to change things, lobbying will become a full contact sport and by and large those serving will have direct experience as to the average persons plight.

Supreme court justices will be elected via the house and senate as per usual, but will be subject to a question and answer forum by the general public on various topics. Their terms will last 17 years each.

[fascisthunter]

3. this from the Supreme Court... what an elitist unamerican pig that man is

just say you hate democracy because it gets in the way of the wealthy's ability to control policy.

[Supersedeas]

76. and he has Thomas Roberts Alito and Kennedy under his wing

[Drale]

4. To be fair I think this old fart

was on the court when we didn't vote for our senators. We really need a forced retirement age for the supreme court.

[Hannah Bell]

57. huh? he's not so old.

[Angry Dragon]

5. He should be impeached

not for his views but for his decisions

[aquart]

13. How about for his conflicts of interest?

[Angry Dragon]

23. If being stupid would get rid of him, that would work for me..nt

[superduperfarleft]

6. This is the new cause du jour among the right.

I'm not 100% sure he actually believes it, rather telling the idiots what they want to hear.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. He is one sick fuck, and he needs to GO.

[Karenina]

32. +1

[earth mom]

55. +1000! nt

[Lance_Boyle]

8. That's not radical, that's how it was originally done.

State legislatures picked Senators. And it's not an entirely bad idea. Would've saved the nation the entirety of Jesse Helms' career in the Senate, as the Democratic state house in NC (at the time) would never have sent him to DC.

[aquart]

15. And what would we get from New York, dear?

[Toucano]

22. It is an entirely bad idea. And it is a radical step backwards.

After a century of popular election of U.S. Senators, regression to how it was "originally" done is radical.

Repealing the 19th amendment would be equally radical, even though women couldn't originally vote.

It is an entirely bad idea now because the House was not originally limited to the size it is now. Giving voters no say in their U.S. Senator selection would further weaken their representation in Washington.

Democracy needs more voices to be heard, not fewer.

[nemo137]

44. +1

[Lance_Boyle]

60. Up until this past election I've had better representation in my state house

than in the US Senate. Would've been nice for my formerly-blue state leg to have sent someone other than Jesse Helms, Liddy Dole, Lauch Faircloth and Richard Burr. But I agree that not every state would fare so well under such a system. I wonder what the balance would be compared to what we have now?

[Hannah Bell]

58. huh? the southern democrats wouldn't have sent helms?

[xchrom]

9. He is out of his fuckin gourd. Nt

[Tsiyu]

51. Hilarious

that is exactly what my Italian dad would say :)

+1000

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. They're after results that will give them an easy takeover of this country.

The Constitution be damned.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Bet if the State Legislatures were heavily Democratic, you'd never hear

a word about this. Only now that there was a huge Republican wave at the State level this cycle...suddenly it's a good idea. What else can the Republican SCOTUS majority do for their Party?

[City Lights]

14. Judicial Activism.

STFU, Tony.

:thumbsdown:

[TwilightGardener]

16. Too much democracy!! He knows you don't give the little people that sort of power.

[Vickers]

18. Get your slavery on, Fat Tony!

:headbang:

[barbtries]

19. scary shit.

nt

[sarcasmo]

49. Scary shit was the first thing that came to my mind.

[pinto]

21. psst, Judge Scalia, The 17th Amendment was passed by 36 of the 48 States.

You want to play the States Rights card, find another issue. Or another game. ~ pinto

[Historic NY]

25. END life time appointments to the SCOTUS make then run for selection.

[Toucano]

53. No, thank you. That's a horrible idea.

The court should be less politicized, not more.

[Historic NY]

54. Well what we have now isn't working...ala Citizens United....maybe

rotating the chief justice and appointing 2-3 shorter term justices at large would work.

[MattBaggins]

26. THERE ARE NO STATES RIGHTS... THERE ARE NO STATES RIGHTS... THERE ARE NO STATES RIGHTS...

The states have powers not rights.

[Kalyke]

29. I was getting ready to point out that very thing!

States don't have rights, PEOPLE do!

[muntrv]

28. Hey Tony! The founding fathers also did not envision Italian Americans

being on the SCOTUS.

[Toucano]

52. They didn't even envision Italy, for that matter. n/t

[Kennah]

30. He's playing to the Tea Baggers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Advocacy_for_repeal

[Nothing Without Hope]

31. This man is beyond misguided. He is deranged.

He already has demonstrated repeatedly that the law of the land is something he enjoys destroying. He says of his vote to stop vote counting and have the Supreme Court appoint a President who would have lost otherwise: "Get over it." He swore to uphold the law, but he acts the opposite. He is beyond corrupt, I now believe. His arrogance and megalomania have crossed over out of sanity. He is not fit to serve. But he is a useful madman for the corporate interests that now rule this country.

[Dash Riprock]

38. I thought the SCOTUS was to interpret laws

to see if they are constitutional or not. We now have a justice who is saying to do away with part of the constitution. Isn’t that judicial activism? I thought conservatives were against that?

[AndrewP]

39. This fucker needs to be impeached

[cojoel]

41. A big reason for the 17th Amendment: William A. Clark

Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Clark

I'm sure Justice Scalia did not address that particular issue.

[Better Believe It]

42. Democratic Presidents should appoint liberals to the Supreme Court

Not just "moderates" who would be considered conservatives thirty years ago and who are acceptable to Republican right-wingers.

[dontcallmebob]

43. scalia is all about playing games

so he thinks the 17th amendment is wrong. what other amendments does he thinks the same? for a guy who's a strict constitutionalist, he sure says stupid things. the formers knew the constitution was going to be amended. i know this because it's in the constitution. for scalia to ignore this is plain stupid for such a smart guy. i think he just likes to mess with people's heads.

[laughingliberal]

45. Deal. We'll repeal the 17th if you'll reverse yourself on CU, repeal corporate personhood...

... and repeal the 22nd. nt

[MicaelS]

47. No surprise...

This is a very popular meme with Conservatives. They really don't believe in the idea of democracy, and take the concept of the US being a Republic to the extreme. In their belief system, repealing the 17th would help ensure a permanent conservative majority in the Senate. They simply do not trust the average voter, and deep down believe only an elite (themselves) should vote.

[marmar]

48. He really is a fascist.

nt

[unkachuck]

50. when are....

....the legislatures, executives and citizenry of our country going to ignore the fascist rantings of the 'supreme court'?

....they have no real power....we ought to cut their funding and send our military to have a talk with them about democracy....

....making the 'supreme court' more cost effective is number one on my list of deficit reduction measures....justices may serve for life, but that should be an austere life....

[Hannah Bell]

56. get that fascist bastard off the court. he needs to be gone.

how do you do it?

[driver8]

59. Apparently we shouldn't be able to elect our Presidents, either...

ARRRRGGHH!!

What a douchebag.

[Yupster]

69. We don't have to

We could have a perfectly valid election for president without a single actual voter voting.

For a long time, most states didn't have a vote of the people for president.

The last state to finally go along was South Carolina in 1868.

Three years after the Civil War the voters of South Carolina in their first vote for president voted for .....................................Ullysses Grant.

[DCKit]

61. Even more scary, the views Scalia holds, but which he knows he can't voice.

One way or another, I really hope his is one of the seats President Obama gets to fill before 2012.

[lightningandsnow]

62. Canada has appointed senators, which actually sucks.

A bunch of Conservative senators just killed an important climate change bill passed by an elected house of commons. I'm so pissed off.

[Yupster]

70. Who are they appointed by?

Is it the state (province) legislatures?

[lightningandsnow]

72. Nope, even worse. The prime minister.

It's fucked up.

[Yupster]

74. Yeah - that's pretty weird

Alberta Senator chosen by guy from Montreal or Toronto doesn't sound good.

[Marr]

63. Good thing we kept all that powder dry.

[ProfessorGAC]

65. Another Originalist "Thought"

Please note the quotation marks around thought.

Ignoring the loathesomeness of this troglodyte, how did ANYBODY OF ANY POLITICAL STRIPE every come to think of this guy as a deep thinker.

The very idea that he embraces originalism is a clear indicator that he's of average, at best, intellect.
GAC

[panzerfaust]

66. I assume he also would repeal Amendments 13, 14 & 15

[JNelson6563]

71. Don't want the unwashed masses deciding the Senate.

What a horrid man.

[Jim__]

73. Scalia should not be able to vote on judicial matters - n/t

[ThoughtCriminal]

75. Decline in "States Rights"

Conservatives still unhappy about that whole desegregation and civil rights thing.