SCOTUS 8 could lead to Constitutional Catch-22

Without weighing in on any of the specific candidates for nomination (by the POTUS), and trying my best to avoid any partisan arguments here, I'd just like to point out a very serious potential ramification of the US Senate GOP's attempts to block the consideration (and hence the appointment) of any nominee to the SCOTUS, sight unseen--no matter who they are. If this plan succeeds, the SCOTUS would be left with 8 members, whom most would agree are evenly divided (4-4) between Conservative and Liberal viewpoints, during the presidential election.

I know many young voters may be too young to remember, but the first presidential election in which I could legally vote will always stick out in my mind (and not only because I was taking a course on the Supreme Court at the time), and that was the Bush v. Gore election of 2000. Let's recall what happened:

• The election came down to FL's electoral votes (contested, triggering machine recounts because of the margin).
• Gore requested hand recounts in four counties (likely favorable to him), which would take longer to complete than the deadline for election certification.
• Katherine Harris considered, and denied, extensions for the four counties, and certified the election for Bush.
• Litigation ensued, and it worked it's way up the courts system.
• The SCOTUS issued a stay on the recount, voting 5-4, and the case was argued before them.
• Eventually the SCOTUS decided 7-2 for the standing issue (Equal Protection Clause) and 5-4 in favor of Harris' enforcement of the deadline, and hence decided the presidential election for Bush.

So let's recap: the SCOTUS decided 5-4 to take the case and resolve the election (by issuing a stay on the recount), and they ultimately decided the case 5-4 as well. So if the current GOP leadership in the Senate has it's way, going into a presidential election with a 4-4 divided SCOTUS, and the election becomes contested in some battleground state in a legal battle which works it's way up to the SCOTUS, we could be looking at the metaphorical snake eating it's own tail--the SCOTUS awaiting a new president to nominate the 9th justice, while the presidential race cannot be constitutionally decided until the SCOTUS makes a 4-4 ruling. Constitutional mayhem--something which I would think we would ALL want to avoid.

Because even if the lower court ruling simply stands, and it resolves the election expediently, there will always be a question of "Yes, but what if the SCOTUS had been able to take the case?" To hobble the SCOTUS from participating in their responsibilities--should the worst happen (small chance that it is) and the election be contested in federal court--is to deny such a contested election any legitimacy to whichever party ends up losing. And in the case of the 2000 election, if the SCOTUS had been hobbled at 8 justices and unable to take the case, it would have been Gore who won (the right to a longer recount) since the lower court's holding was for him.

Look--arguably any very liberal nomination from the POTUS might have exactly the same effect as well--so I'm not *just* laying this at the feet of the Senate GOP entirely. But, so far, they are the only ones who have publicly stated they will block this process--no matter who the candidate is, or when they are nominated--as long as the POTUS is still serving his last year. Hence, they are the only ones implying they are willing to risk the legitimacy of the next presidential election on their fundamental opposition to the current President (and/or his party).

Whatever you think of Obama, this kind of political gambling is not respectful of our Constitution, the SCOTUS, nor the nature and constancy of our federal government entirely. It is the desperate act of a terribly near-sighted ideology, and I sincerely hope the GOP refuses to let it take hold... Please, do your Constitutional duty, and duly consider the POTUS's nominee. Hold hearings. Take votes. That's all we ask, as Americans...

Google weakening?!?

Google just announced they are licensing Microsoft's Exchange ActiveSync for use with their own online sync tools.  I am mildly disappointed in this news, since I have avoided using Microsoft Outlook since the late nineties, only using it as a stopgap until NuevaSync was founded and I could sync my google calendar with the iPhone/iPod Touch through wi-fi.  I hate Microsoft's virtual monopoly of email software since it makes virii much more 'viral' and infective (for lack of a better adj.), not to mention it sucks...  Hopefully this is a temporary measure until more people switch over to Google's online services.

Although it may seem that Google has a monopoly (at least over search engine advertising), they continue to act as though they're a small to medium-sized fish in a giant ocean.  I know it cannot last forever (every big company eventually sells out), but it seems it will hold out as long as the founders remain CEO's.  [They inevitably move to the dark side once they hire a career businessman as a CEO...]

Cheetos(R): My new (old) favorite chips

From time to time I have blogged about big businesses with honorable and reputable social policies or protections.  Although this particular company is not tech-related, I'd like to take a moment to commend Frito-Lay for the info on the latest Cheeto's bag I bought at the store.

The back of the bag has (as usual) cartoons.  However, this one is titled "What's a serving?" And goes on to describe that 21 Cheetos(R), which reach ~3.5 ft when laid end to end, constitute one full serving.

At a time when child obesity is a growing problem, diabetes and heart disease run rampant across the country, and excess is encouraged by most big businesses to maximize profits, I find this incredibly responsible.  In fact, I once saw a local TV special where they gave children a giant bag of chips and asked them to pour out about one serving onto a plate for themselves. One (notably pudgy) kid of about 12 poured over 5 servings (as defined on the package) for himself and said that it was common for him to eat this amount in one seating!

Now it's possible that this is a recent legal enforcement, but I haven't heard anything about such a law (other than the one requiring that the serving size must be printed somewhere on the package... usually in the fine print in the Nutritional Facts).  But if it was the choice of Frito-Lay I must say I've a newfound respect for this snack food giant, and will certainly look to pick more Frito-Lay products when buying junk food!!! I encourage you all to do the same.

Remember: In capitalism, your greatest individual power is your choice of where to spend your money!!!