Play the video as you read the Editorial
Bob Seger, Beautiful Loser
As Americans begin to grasp the possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturning Roe v Wade, now is a good time to discuss making laws through "venue shopping."
While all three branches of government have ways to create laws and enforced policies, the traditional method is passing legislation through both congressional houses and being signed into law by the President.
Our form of government was designed to be slow and dependent upon informed political discourse. Civil debate forces compromise and moderation. When the courts create law through decree, the parties are not forced to work together: thus becoming increasingly extreme. Many mistakenly believe America is a (direct) democracy. Our model of self-governance is a Constitutional Republic; also known as an indirect democracy.
He wants to dream like a young man. With the wisdom of an old man. (Beautiful Loser, Bob Seger)
Proposals to eliminate the mechanisms that force moderation, such as lowering the vote for Federal judges to 51, eliminating the filibuster, or ending the Electoral College are pernicious proposals in an era of dysfunctional hyper-partisanship.
In the traditional method of creating laws, up to 536 elected officials are involved (436 Congress, 100 Senators, and the President).
As Americans gained greater access to the courts, 'venue shopping' became an easier method to change or create laws. This was helpful during the civil rights era when, often, Southern States skirted Federal laws.
He wants his home and security. He wants to live like a sailor at sea.
Venue shopping is choosing to pursue or instigate a case in a Federal Court District where the plaintiff will likely lose. This allows those bringing the suit to appeal to SCOTUS.
An example most are familiar with is the landmark civil rights case, Brown v The Board of Education. In this example, the plaintiff, the NAACP, and their attorney Thurgood Marshall wanted to end segregation. The previous policy, known as 'separate but equal' was decreed in the case Plessey v Ferguson. By losing initially, Marshall appealed the case to the Supreme Court. In this venue, Marshall needed only five judges to agree with his argument.
While reasonable Americans applaud the outcome in Brown, as we are seeing with Roe, although a judicial verdict has the effect of law, court precedence can be overturned by subsequent decisions. What was achieved by court decisions can be easily lost by a court decision.
Polling indicates voters are fed up with bickering and acrimony.
Today, as parties become ideologically extreme the intended system of forced compromise and civil debate, resulting in moderation, declines. We want to recognize that more direct democracy will not, over the long term, produce better governance or increased rights. Instead, our nation swings from one extreme to the other, then back again.
Beautiful loser. Where you gonna fall? When you realize, you just can't have it all
Ultimately, the legislative system needs to function as prescribed in the Constitution and pass laws. This cannot happen as long as voters encourage and reward partisan division, demonize the opposition, and tolerate half-truths and lies.
He's your oldest and your best friend. If you need him, he'll be there again. He'll never make any enemies…He'll always ask, he'll always say please
In the end, voters need to choose between supporting candidates who pursue good governance, less polarization, and moderation. Or we could continue down a path that seemingly frustrates most, elevates distrust, and gives platforms to office-seekers who increasingly seem, according to Senator Romney, moronic.
One path leads back to good governance, greater trust, moderation, stability, and a healthy pluralism: the other leads to instability, the loss of individual rights, fiscal crisis, and the weakening of America.
Winning at all costs has made a loser out of you and me.
Beautiful loser. Never take it all. 'Cause it's easier. And faster when you fall