There’s an article on Salon today about how if any of the Supreme Court justices retire in the next 18 months (a definite possibility) that GW Bush should do the _ethical_ thing and not appoint replacements. Huh?

The author’s rationale is simple — if Bush does appoint a new justice, he is tilting the court in favor of Republicans. Well, duh. Why wouldn’t a liberal president do the same thing? This is precisely why I hate politics, and by extension, politicians — when you’re not in power, you’re always on the ethical high road. And when you are in power, you can do no wrong.

The arguments put forth in the article aren’t anything more than liberal FUD (and this isn’t an attack on liberals….a conservative would write the same article if a liberal president was leaving office in 18 months). This argument is particularly fuzzy:

In short, a Bush appointment to the Supreme Court would not be unconstitutional, but it would be fundamentally undemocratic, which — and I suspect the pre-election Republicans would agree — is even worse.

Huh? Isn’t the entire Supreme Court nomination process undemocratic? The people have no say in who is nominated. None. Sure, we vote for the people who have the power to nominate a justice, even that power is held only by the groups powerful (and rich enough) to sway a politician’s opinions. The whole idea that a justice is a justice for life is undemocratic. “Pot, hi. This is kettle. I think you’re black.”

Posted on 13 June 2003