“How Much Can The Present Style Benefit Us?”: AOC Questions Role Of Supreme Court In Defending Court Packing

It often seems our politics of rage has created a brand new age of berserkers, warriors revered because of their destructive fury. In order to distinguish yourself from the rest of the mob, you should show a willingness to lay waste to any structure or institution to the road to victory. Not to be outdone, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. not only endorsed the court-packing scheme but appeared to question the very basis for Marbury v. Madison — that the case laying the foundation to the Supreme Court in our constitutional system.
AOC challenged the role of this Court in overturning laws. She contested”just, reluctantly, the notion that nine people, a nine individual court, can overturn laws that thousand– hundreds and tens of thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.”  She then included”Just how far does the present structure benefit us? And I really don’t believe it will.”
That present structure is called judicial review. It’s the very thing that prevents authoritarian rule. Notably, there is not much difference in the proposed thirteen justices overturning laws”thousands and hundreds of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” Unless she’s suggesting requiring a huge number of jurists to review laws in equal amounts, her difficulty seems to be using the idea of judicial review.
Part of the right to review is that the ambitious of unconstitutional federal laws.  Marshall noted that”[t]he powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits might not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.”
AOC seems as convinced a small number of jurists should not stand in judgment of their requirements of tens of thousands.  There is a term for that sort of system. Mill explains that”the will of the people […] practically means that the will of their most numerous or the most energetic portion of the population.” Framers such as John Adams called the form of tyranny and it is exactly what prompted figures such as George Mason to demand a Bill of Rights protecting individual rights against the authorities — and the will of the majority. You don’t need a First Amendment to protect popular language. It’s designed to safeguard the unpopular views of an insular and even despised minority.
What has been an enlightened view in the Eighteenth Century is now reactionary at the Twenty-First Century. The Court is an impediment to advancement. Really, the privileged few justices — whether thirteen — is intolerable for those who seek change our society.  These structural changes are being pushed through despite an election that left the Senate at a 50-50 tie and the House using a now two-seat majority. It’s indeed”tyranny of this mere majority.”
What’s most chilling yet is AOC’s question”Just how far can the present structure benefit us? It reflects a crisis for faith. No inherent system could long endure with a sort of leap of faith from the govern — faith not just in the machine itself however every other.  That faith is now gone. Instead, we’ve got the rise of the berserkers, politicians promising to yield to no institution or tradition that doesn’t”benefit us”
Back at the age of Vikings, berserkers would toss off their armor and even sting their own defenses in pure rage. Accounts of this time explain a sort of trancelike state called berserkergang that could explain many in our existing politics: some”shivering, chattering of the teeth, and then chill in the entire body, and then the face peeled and changed its colour. With this was joined a terrific hot-headedness, which gave into a excellent rage.” Norse leaders employed the berserkers to their own endings. On the other hand, that the berserkers had other plans and shortly their lust for destruction threatened these leaders themselves.
President Joe Biden has continued to stand mute because these characters rampage through his party and the country. He’s obviously unwilling to confront them directly and threat AOC or some other inquiring how Biden”benefits us” Truly, he’s empowering them by refusing to denounce court packing or other extreme requirements. These extreme forces could be helpful in maintaining Democratic management in the 2022 and 2024 elections. However, if the White House hopes they’ll function as Biden’s berserkers, history shows they will not be for longterm.
Like this:Just Like Loading…