COUP WATCH: 'No Time For Democracy,' Supreme Court Says COUP WATCH: 'No Time For Democracy,' Supreme Court Says

By Paul Rosenberg

Ever since the unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education conservatives have been trying mightily to discredit the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, after 46 years of endless struggle, they finally succeded.

Other Supreme Court decisions have been more purely evil--Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson come immediately to mind--but none has ever managed to combine such sweeping evil with such a tangled web of sheer perversity. Consider these few samples of its depraved indifference to justice, logic, democracy and common sense:

The Court wrote, "The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees."

Yet this is precisely what the Court has done. Indeed, it is the very essence of the decision: it decided to prevent the counting of what are certainly many legal votes, thus depriving those who cast those votes of any equal protection guarantee. This action has left football fans across the country wondering, "Since when is delay-of-game worth 7 points?"

Why did the Court decide that recounts should stop--rejecting a remedy proposed by Justice Breyer? Read it yourself:

&

&

Is our experiment in democracy over? If the Supreme Court has ruled that only the votes of approved people should be counted then the right to vote is ended.

How then will our country resolve political differences? They will not be resolved by pretending that we have a government of the people, by the people and for the people when in fact we do not. Can I go to the polls to vote when I know that the votes of others who are joining me in my preferences will not be counted. Even though my precinct will go through the exersize of counting my vote, it will be meaningless unless it is joined by many others. E pluribus unum

I think we've seen the first post-modern Supreme Court decision here. It's unintelligible in standard English and invokes a completely relativistic and non-rational standard for constitutional law.

And, of course, Scalia gains mightily by his decision, so we see post-modern ethics at work as well.