What the anti-sexers have done to us

It’s bad enough that they’ve created a state of moral paranoia about sex, it’s bad enough that they’ve infiltrated the pharmaceutical profession, it’s bad enough that they’ve turned women’s clinics into battle zones, but what the anti-sexers have done to the highest court in the land is an absolute mockery. (If you don’t know who the anti-sexers are by now, look here.)

Supreme court justices used to be governors, senators, god forbid, even judges. Now we get some second-rate political hack who’s never held a significant political office? All because of fear of sex? Now, I realize sex is important, let’s think about it rationally: how much do we really care about sex? I can’t find the link right now, but One of the conservative blogs’ response to the Miers nomination was this: “Mr. President, you’ve got some explaining to do. And please remember - we’ve been defending you these five years because of this moment.”

So let me get this straight — Iraq, Katrina, budget incompetence, fiscal irresponsibility, tax cuts upon tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, all that would have been justifiable, if only Bush had appointed an anti-sex justice? Is that really what it’s come down to? Apparently there is a substantial portion of America — a minority, still, but influential enough to sway the presidential vote — for whom nothing matters more than what someone else is doing in their bedroom (or in their car back seat, or on their bearskin rug, or in an airplane lavatory, or, I don’t know, in their scuba gear. Use your imagination! Or don’t, depending on your politics.).

I wonder how many Americans actually vote solely based on the pro-sex/anti-sex issue. I bet it’s at least 30 percent. Think of it, 30 percent of Americans think someone else’s sex life is more important than universal health coverage (pro or con), war, taxation, justice, homelessness, education, the environment, the looming energy crisis, the social security disaster, and terrorism. In my book, from that list, only terrorism is less important than the pro/anti sex debate (but that’s a topic for another post).

The result, in this case, is not only the current disasters in domestic and foreign policy, but also the potential (probable?) future legal disaster created by having a Supreme Court full of no-names with undistinguished records of public service.

I’m wondering — and this is just a thought experiment, I’m not proposing anything — what would happen if Supreme Court justices were elected instead of appointed. We could take this whole imaginary morality concept completely out of the office of the President and place it directly in the hands of the people. If we did it that way, we might also have some kind of a minimum requirement for serving — maybe 10 years of experience in a state supreme court or federal appellate court, or perhaps a term in office as a governor, senator, or president. Then we’d get to pick our own justices, based on a real record of service. And more importantly, we’d pick our presidents based on what they’d actually do in office, instead of who they might pick if someone happens to die or retire.