I don't like the Bush Administration, but that's OK. Everyone's entitled to an opinion on issues, and while I may disagree with them on virtually everything, clearly there are a large number of people that support Bush. What is not OK is that I am afraid of the Bush Administration, and the Republican Party as a whole. There is just too much power in too few people's hands.Controlling both the legislative and executive branches of the government, while devastating to the opposing party's agenda, is still perfectly reasonable, given that the members of these branches are (ideally) elected democratically by the populace whom they represent. After all, the system of checks and balances put in place by our founding fathers was designed to keep each of the three branches from gaining too much control over the control over the direction of the country. This system fosters discussion and compromise, and ensures that everyone's voice is heard.

Something has faltered somewhere along the line, because that ain't happening.

When the elected branches are dominated by a single party, the opposition can, in extreme cases, turn to the judicial branch for impartial interpretation of the law. Unfortunately, it seems that the GOP has secured a hold on even the judiciary branch.

President Bush has nominated 168 judges for federal bench seats. Democrats blocked a total of four using the filibuster, the only tool they have as the minority party. Naturally, they were absolutely demonized for this. The president and many members of congress ranted about these horrible "obstructionist tactics," and looked for ways to amend the Senate rules to prevent them from recurring. Never mind that during Clinton's presidency, literally dozens of nominees were blocked from federal judgeships. Toward the end of Clinton's second term, there was a critical shortage of judges on the benches. Today there are fewer empty slots than there have been for decades. As for those four rejected justices, Bush has completely bypassed the Senate and used recess appointments to place two of them anyway.

All of these federal judges confirmed by the Senate are in place for life, so the repercussions of the courts being stacked with ultraconservative judges will be felt for years, even decades, to come.

But all of these judges' rulings are not infallible; all must answer to the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate authority on all legal decisions. So the concept of even that body being politically motivated is horrifying.

John Paul Stevens, the eldest member of the U.S. Supreme Court, concluded his dissent in Bush v. Gore as follows: "One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." This is clearly meant to suggest that, much to his dismay, the highest court in the land had, for the first time in 220 years of service, fallen victim to the political leanings of its members.

This is not just a pain for Democrats. It is downright dangerous. With the members of the highest court in the land having shown themselves to be unable to set aside personal beliefs and not to rely on interpretation of the law, the legitimacy of its decisions are called into question.

Recently there has been something of an uproar over Justice Antonin Scalia's trip with Vice President Dick Cheney to go duck hunting and have dinner together. The two have been friends for many years, and the justices are certainly permitted to have social lives outside of their work. However, the vice president has a case pending before the court, involving whether or not the Administration's energy policies were unduly influenced by corporate interests. Given Scalia's close ties to the defendant and the short period of time between the court's decision to hear the case and their excursion (three weeks), Scalia has been called on by not only the plaintiffs, but also dozens of editorial pages, ethical watchdogs, legal groups and congressmen to recuse himself from the judgment of the case.

He has refused, however, asserting that the trip was no different from the social mingling in which other justices regularly engage. He claims all he is guilty of is hunting with a friend and taking a free plane ride to get there, saying, "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined." Bill Maher finished this quote for him, quipping, "...besides, I already cashed the check."

I cracked up at that. At the same time, it sent a shiver down my spine. That this sort of cynicism exists, that we can question the justices' impartiality, suggests that we are indeed in bad shape as a country. Who can we trust if not the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbitrator of our laws?

I feel like I've been trampled by a herd of elephants.