Let me start this post by saying the 108th Congress is the worst, most unproductive session in recent memory. They've done nothing of note, and it's been marked by scandal, pervasive corruption, and continual breaking of institutional norms. (Three hour roll call votes, closed rules on every fucking bill, excluding minority party members from conference committee, adding unrelated provisions in conference committee, stripping provisions agreed to by both houses in conference committee, calling the police to kick committee members out of their own hearings, etc. All in one two year session!) In short, its leadership deserves turning out, though due to the last round of redistricting, that will never happen.

What about the Senate? Yeah, they've been plenty bad, but for pure venal, entrenched, corrupt scum, you can't beat the Republican House leadership, with Tom Delay pulling the strings.

Anyhow, just because they've done nothing of value doesn't mean they haven't passed reckless, unprecedented legislation. I'm referring to the recent slew of court stripping bills, which normally languish and die in committee, but in the 108th Congress have been brought to the floor and passed.

HR 3313, the "Marriage Protection Act" passed this July, and in lieu of an actual constitutional amendment passed by the normal procedure, the bill revokes federal court jurisdiction over cases challenging the constitutionality of 1996's so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." Ie, they grant that that anti-equal rights legislation is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional, so they'll just say the courts can't rule on it.

Does that make any sense? Seems like Congress was established to create laws, and the Supreme Court was there to make sure they didn't conflict with the Constitution. But Article III, Section 2 says "In all the other cases...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions...as the Congress shall make."

So hypothetically Congress can declare anything it wants outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But this is a remarkably bad idea, and Congress rightfully hasn't opened this Pandora's Box before. Once we start taking away the Supreme Court's jurisdiction on any issue we like, there will no longer be a Supreme Court to establish and protect rights under the Constitution.

But no matter! The 108th Congress pathetically admits its hateful anti-gay agenda is unconstitutional, and they seek to circumvent the due process rights all Americans enjoy. Not only that, they're actively pushing votes on similar legislation relating to the Pledge of Allegiance and flag desecration.

Clearly these votes are just meant to put Democrats in marginal districts in an uncomfortable position of voting to uphold the Constitution, while appearing to support gay marriage and flag burning.

Principle would advise against the radical step of court stripping, but principle just allows the Republicans to continue to trample all over us with wedge issues and cynical maneuvering. The only way to get them to maintain a semblance of decorum is to draw some of their blood.

I'm fucking sick of it. House Democrats should start sponsoring bills to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over the Violence Against Women Act, which was struck down in 2000 in United States vs. Morrison, or perhaps to strip the Court of jurisdiction over the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990, which was struck down in United States v. Lopez. Let's get some Republicans on record as pro-violence against women and pro-guns in schools. Charge up the discharge positions.

With the ideological tilt of the Rehnquist court there's scores of hideously unpopular decisions to score points off of. Let's get some wedge issues out there ourselves.