But GOP Representatives on Court vote 4-1 in Bush’s favor

A major U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week concerning the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases that affect global warning came down as a split decision. The four Justices on the Court unanimously ruled that Bush’s EPA had violated the Clean Air Act by refusing to control vehicle emissions that contribute to global warming. However, the five officials who represent the Republican Party on the Court voted 4-1, with Party Representative Kennedy dissenting, that the EPA was entitled to ignore such emissions if it wants to.

All across the Beltway, analysts agreed that this ruling sent a mixed signal. Those charged with producing just decisions on the Court and upholding the Constitution took a strong stand against Acting President Bush. These “Justices” include two appointed by Democratic presidents (Ginsburg and Breyer) and two by Republicans (Stevens and Souter). But the Acting President found strong support among those whose role is to make sure that the Court gives a voice to the Republican Party’s official positions.

“On the one hand, Bush will be under strong pressure to act on the Justices’ ruling,” one celebrity pundit said, “especially since their position was actually upheld by a majority of the whole Court. On the other hand, Bush can always point to the GOP reps and say, ‘Well hey, 80% of those people supported me.’ That’s not easy to argue with, especially when so many conservatives commentators have effectively demonstrated that justice has a liberal bias.”

Another pundit, equally widely quoted by those who like to appear impressive, agreed. “It’s not like the media, where you also have a split between those who represent the Right and those who are supposed to be fair. In the media, those who are supposed to be fair pretty much cave in to the Right at every opportunity anyway. But it seems like the four Justices make some effort to actually be fair, at least within the limits of the system. They sometimes rule against even very large corporations, with effectively unlimited pockets. That’s why so many people have questioned whether Justices should continue to occupy nearly half the seats on the Court.”

It was the five GOP Representatives who in December 2000 awarded Bush the presidency, or the right to pretend to it, in the first place, despite the fact that he wasn’t elected, saving American democracy from the dreaded scourge of itself in the celebrated Bush v. Gore decision, despite the opposition of all four Justices. The legal reasoning behind the ruling established the fundamental American principle that the appearance of legitimacy must always be preserved, even at the cost of making actual legitimacy impossible.

After Bush was re-selected as Acting President in 2004 by means of extensive electoral fraud, two of the Bush v. Gore majority left the Court and were replaced by Representatives Alito and Roberts. Some objected that they had no right to serve on the Court, having never been appointed by an actual President. But few heeded this objection since, elected or not, Bush was clearly still the leading figure in the Republican Party, giving him the responsibility of ensuring it continues to get its fair share of five seats out of nine on the Court.

The other three Representatives who made up the Bush v. Gore majority, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, have continued to serve on the Court as Party Representatives to this very day.