Feature, Not Bug
by digby
Scott Lemieux elaborates here:
There’s an observable asymmetry on the Court, which contains four of the most consistently reactionary justices since World War II and has no liberal comparable to Willam Brennan or Thurgood Marshall. And while on the current Court it makes very little difference whether you have a Marshall clone or another Stephen Breyer, as the configuration of the Court changes, it may matter a great deal. Imagine if Robert Bork had been confirmed by the Senate: Antonin Scalia, rather than Anthony Kennedy, would be the median vote on the Court. The biggest reason to be concerned about Elena Kagan’s nomination is that she seems unlikely to reverse this trend.
There are a whole bunch of reasons for this, not the least of which is the capture of the Village by the conservative movement. But in the end what it really signifies is that the aristocracy (the moneyed elite) reasserted itself after the depression and made sure that the court protected their privilege. Both parties obviously helped, although the motivation is probably some mixture of fear, laziness, myopia and complicity. The result is the same: an ever more conservative judiciary which ensures that the elected riff-raff can pander to the rubes without any negative consequences accruing to the owners of America.
It doesn’t have to be like this, of course. But it’s inevitable when liberals are chumps.
.