Newsweek Anti-Supreme Court Rant Funny

I have to hand it to this biased rag that they are really employing some interesting folks down there. This anti-Supreme Court rant would be so funny if it was not written for a major news periodical.

Anybody who believes the current Supreme Court looks like America needs to take a few more trips on a Greyhound bus. All the judges are white and/or old; most are both. Justice John Paul Stevens is 88 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75. David Souter is 68, and it's widely rumored in legal circles that he wants out.

Um, Mrs. Lithwick (the author) needs to find some non-Wikipedia sources in which to base her arguments. The last I checked Clarence Thomas is black and Samuel Alito and John Roberts are 58 and 53 respectively and Thomas is 60. They aren't spring chickens but who in their right mind wants a Justice in his 30-40s? They need to be seasoned judges and lawyers and have the experience that comes with being older.

Also the idea that they don't look like America is bunk as well. America is about 70% white and about 12% black and the Court is 80% white and 11% black. If the next Justice is a Latino then it will fit the racial demographics nearly perfectly.

This part takes the cake though:

As you contemplate what you want the next Supreme Court to look like, ask yourself what happens when judges are sidelined—or when they're chosen for their inclination to sideline themselves. If we really want to restore the rule of law in America, then we'd better vote for a president who believes that we call it the Supreme Court for a reason.

If judges are sidelined then people that we get to elect, and that can be held accountable for their screwups, get to make our laws. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret these laws and strike them down if they are against the Constitution. The Court isn't supposed to make these laws or create sweeping changes in American life even though it still sometimes happens.

These so-called sidelined judges understand that they need to use this power to change the very fabric of American life very rarely. They have not been elected by the people and cannot be fired from their post so they have to be know what they are doing when they rule on something.

I'm pretty sure Ms. Lithwick would be be 100% against an all-Conservative Supreme Court that used their potential for Judicial Activism like a big hammer to criminalize abortion, limit the power of the press, and do anything they wanted with no threat of impeachment or reprimand. Newsweek would be first in line to condemn that Court I can assure you.