Fortunately, the op ed piece is available online.

Here’s an excerpt with an outline of the idea.

Yet there was more to Perry’s campaign than blunders. It was also a campaign of “ideas.” Few of them were good, alas. For example, reducing the salaries of members of Congress by half, to eighty-seven thousand dollars a year, is not a good idea. Neither is a tax cut that would net the richest one per cent more than five thousand dollars a week and the unrichest twenty per cent less than two dollars and fifty cents. Nor is there much to be said for reinvading Iraq, reinstituting torture, or unconditionally supporting new and bigger Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Yet at least one idea Perry embraced was, and is, very good indeed. It involves the Supreme Court. The Governor may be a little shaky about the Court’s names and numbers, but he knows what to do about it. Here’s the proposal, straight from his now moribund campaign Web site:

A Constitutional Amendment creating 18-year terms staggered every 2 years, so that each of the nine Justices would be replaced in order of seniority every other year. This would be a prospective proposal, and would be applied to future judges only. Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.

This ingenious idea has been kicking around in legal circles for decades. It tiptoed into wider view in 2002, via a Washington Post op-ed piece by two prominent law professors of opposite ideological and political leanings: Yale’s Akhil Reed Amar, a Democrat, a former clerk for Stephen Breyer, and a stalwart of the liberal American Constitution Society; and Northwestern’s Steven G. Calabresi, a Republican, a former clerk for Antonin Scalia, and a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society. In 2006, Calabresi and his colleague James Lindgren fleshed the idea out in a long article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Justices would still get lifetime appointments. After their eighteen years with the Supremes, they could choose to serve on other federal courts, bringing their experience and, in some cases, their wisdom to the appellate bench. Even if they didn’t exercise that option, though, their salaries would continue for life. If a Justice died or retired before his or her eighteen years were up, a substitute would be appointed via the usual process—Presidential nomination, Senate confirmation—to serve out the remainder. The interim Justice would not be eligible for reappointment to the Supreme Court, but he or she would have the same sweet post-Court deal. And what lawyer wouldn’t jump at the chance to be a Justice of the highest of high courts, if only for a year?

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/01/30/120130taco_talk_hertzberg#ixzz1kgrVczzx

There’s more in the article.

Conservatives might resist the idea right now, but in 10 years they might be singing a different tune.

There are some downsides. Maybe there would be more overturning of previous decisions, but then maybe courts, knowing that there’s a little more fluidity, would be more cognizant of making decisions which will last and therefor less partisan.

What to you think?

Again, I don’t trust polling in a district like this, but assuming they are even close to accurate, it does appear that the Republican Dan Roberts is the favored not-Huffman to win the runoff spot – if there is a run-off.  Although registered Republicans are in the minority, perhaps to an extreme, he probably starts with a minimal 20 percent of solid base votes.  That will make it tough for any of the progressive alternative candidates to break into second place, especially if they are fracturing the progressive not-Huffman vote.  And the more pragmatic prominent Republicans are probably going to back Huffman, since Roberts probably doesn’t stand much of a chance in November no matter how many progressive positions he takes.  In this election, the R by the name will be a disqualifying factor for most voters.

I think it’s time for a poll.  This is hardly scientific, but it will give an idea of where Humboldt County progressives are leaning.

I know I’ve posted a lot of videos lately, but this one is very remarkable.

Meanwhile, Obamacare is moving closer to full throttle, for what it’s worth.  My last caller on the radio the other night presented a very optimistic assessment of the law, and I wanted to believe him, just as I would love to join the optimism of this Kos poster.

Do you think national single payer is inevitable?

Conventional wisdom says that a tough Republican primary is good for Obama, but the extended slug-fest between Clinton and him didn’t help McCain the last time around.  In fact, it pretty much vetted the issues so that the public was tired of hearing about Rev. Wright, the Weathermen, etc. by the summer.  And Obama was toughened up for the Republican onslaught over the 08 summer.

A side note – when the SC vote is analyzed, I suspect that anti-Mormon bigotry will have been deemed  a significant factor.  I wonder if it’ll get much discussion in the mainstream media.

Update:  Geez!  It’s looking like a rout!

According to exit polls, Romney lost in every income category except above $200,000 and above.

From DKos:  5:30 PM PT: 28% of South Carolina is black. 99% of GOP primary votes were white.

Second update:  For the second time in four years, South Carolina has proven to be the pivotal primary.

Meanwhile, David Bossie, president of Citizens United, is telling Romney that he needs to stop attacking “the eventual nominee.”

Third update:  For the few of you who watch polls, a note from DKos.

One last note, check out the results page at the NY Times here. Go down to the polling results at the bottom.

Of all the polling done in the race, the NY Times decides that only one meets its polling standards, a CNN poll. The results of that poll?

Romney 33, Gingrich 23.

Meanwhile, PPP, which didn’t meet the NY Times bullshit standards:

Gingrich 40, Romney 26

Final results? Gingrich 40, Romney 27.

I love it that they’re our pollster.

I don’t know what the NY Times criteria is, but I’m suspecting that any polling which does not factor in cell phones, which are gradually replacing landlines, will be outdated soon, if not already.

…..

Comment from one of the DKos threads:  “Who knew we’d be making jokes about the multiple wives of the not-Mormon in the race?”

…..

And it appears that hardline conservatives are happy:  “6:02 PM PT: Just spent 10 minutes at Free Republic (what I do for you guys!), and it’s 100 percent pro-Newt over there. So awesome!”

…..

And it took the better part of the evening before the Romney campaign thought to take this one down.

Eureka to Participate in

OCCUPY THE COURTS — January 20, 2012

Over 120 Protests Planned at Courthouses Nationwide

Against Supreme Court Ruling that Corporations Are People

Over 120 courthouses, including the Federal Courthouse in Eureka (downtown Post Office building) and the Supreme Court, will become the focus of Occupy protesters against corporate rule on Friday, January 20. This is one day before the second anniversary of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run the government.

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions corporations, which were rare entities at our nation’s founding. But thanks to decades of rulings by Justices who molded the law to favor elite interests, corporations today are granted privileges that empower them to deny citizens the right to full self-governance.  Armed with these rights, corporations wield ever-increasing control over jobs, natural assets, elected officials, judges and the law.

We believe corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges citizens and their elected representatives willfully grant them. Organizers of OCCUPY THE COURTS propose a Constitutional Amendment that will overturn the Court-created legal doctrines of corporate personhood and “Money Equals Speech.”

WHEN: Friday, January 20, noon-1pm

WHERE: Eureka Federal Courthouse, 5^th & H Streets (downtown Post Office building)

WHO: Democracy Unlimited/Move to Amend activists

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY!

To learn more about OCCUPY THE COURTS – 1.20.2012 please visit www.movetoamend.org/occupythecourts.