A Stitch in Haste

Remember the furor when California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a duly-passed same-sex marriage bill on the grounds that the courts should resolve such issues? The hypocrisy of a Republican calling for courts, rather than "duly elected representatives," to decide "the marriage question" was overlooked by no one — except of course the Republicans.

Apologists for Schwarzenegger wrote the incident off as the bumblings of a populist buffoon (which, of course, Schwarzenegger is — point conceded).

So what's Arlen Specter's excuse?

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) courageously championed an amendment to restore the judicial oversight that Mr. Bush opposed. When his amendment failed on a 51 to 48 vote, the senator said he would vote against the bill, calling it "patently unconstitutional on its face." Then he voted for it. The bill, he explained, had good points, and the courts "will clean it up."

The judicial oversight referred to is of course the writ of habeas corpus, which as I explained in this post simply cannot be suspended under the current War on Terror, which is unarguably not a "rebellion or invasion."

Is this the grand moral stance of the Republican leadership in Congress these days? Who cares whether it's unconstitutional? The courts (i.e., those "activist judges") will "clean it up." This is how decisions are made in "the world's greatest deliberative body"?

Madness. Sheer madness.

More thoughts from LLP.