Skip to main content

DADT repeal fails; time for some judicial activism

The theory by propounded by haters of "judicial activism" is that America's political arguments are best settled in a political -- not legal -- arena. Judges should defer to Congress, the thinking goes, because Congress is elected by the citizenry, and thanks to elections every couple of years, is accountable to that citizenry.

But: It's clear that overwhelming majority of Americans favor a repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." And a nearly overwhelming majority of the Senate does so, as well: 57 Senators voted today for cloture on a bill that would repeal DADT. These aren't close numbers in either case. Yet there will be no repeal of DADT. Procedures.

Meanwhile, a case against the law sits in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals -- slowed down, apparently, to allow the political process to take the lead. I hope the case now goes forward with all due speed. And I hope the courts affirm the decision that DADT is unconstitutional.

This will surely bring more cries of "judicial activism" from the right, if it happens. But who cares? If the political arena can't be responsive not only to the wishes of a large majority of the citizens, but a large majority of its own members, what good is it? There's a plausible argument to be made that DADT is unconstitutional; the courts should feel free to act on that argument. They'll be hewing closer to the wishes of the citizenry than the political branches.


Parks said…
Prove it's a large majority, and you might have a case. Hard to do that though, since that same majority either failed to vote or voted knowing that Republicans would not be amenable to it.

This is typical dem though, ultimately creating a large majority out of whole cloth and using it to push through changes unassailable by democracy. If you want a non-partisan example of why this is bad, replace "DADT" with "Assisted Suicide." You aren't the only one that could appeal to a theoretical large majority.
Joel said…
In what universe is a 57-40 vote of senators not a large majority? In what universe is 78 percent of the citizenry not a majority? (That's the poll I linked to.) There's nothing "theoretical" about the majorities I describe.

Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…