Elections and Consequences

With so many of the administration’s policies facing legal challenges, the increased likelihood that those cases could end up before more ideologically sympathetic judges is a reassuring development to the White House. Nowhere has this dynamic been more evident than at the District of Columbia court, which is considered the second most important appeals court in the nation, after the Supreme Court.

It’s not just SCOTUS, he’s been able to rejigger the entire system.

6 thoughts on “Elections and Consequences”

  1. This is why a “term limit” for ALL elected and APPOINTED federal positions is a MUST when we get the states Constitutional Convention going. I propose a lifetime limit of 12 years in ANY elected or appointed federal position with a one time 4 year period to implement. Also a requirement that Congress “shall make no law” that exempts Congress members. Also an end to “lame duck” sessions of Congress, moving the dates of elections and start of the new Congress to 2 weeks after the election and changing the structure of Congress to take advantage of 21st century technology instead of 18th century..

  2. I’m hopeful this can be reversed when the GOP wins the Senate, and if the win the Presidency in 2016.

    But note that local elections have even more consequences- by changing the culture, electing pro-gun state officials, and the rise of the internet we have made CCW normal. Even Dem judges can’t uphold the most heinous anti-gun laws.

    1. They can’t uphold the gun laws that the local and state legislatures have struck down.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the anti-gun forces made a big mistake by primarily using federal law and regulation in advance of a supermajority of local and state law and regulation. They never built their foundations properly, and when the tide changed, their edifices are being undercut.

      1. That’s because anti-gunners are statists at heart. The only form of government that computes with them is omnipresent and across-the-board, which would mean federal laws and regulations enforced by the executive branch.

  3. Say this for the Republicans, though, they are now focused on this issue. George W. Bush, for all his faults, spent a lot of effort on packing the judiciary with his ideological sympathizers. The only other Republican President I can think of who recognized the importance of owning the judiciary following the revolutions of 1932 and 1964 was Richard Nixon, though Reagan talked an OK game. But the Democrats — prominently including FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton as well as Obama — have realized for generations that they can do a tremendous amount of social engineering, and prevent a ton of social retro-engineering, just by controlling the judiciary.

Comments are closed.