We're in deep doo-doo.

If Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy gets his way, we're in deep doo-doo. He is considering legislation that would allow a retired Supreme Court Justice to sit in for a Justice who has recused himself from a case because of previous involvement.

Why is he doing this? Because Elena Kagan, as Solicitor General, has been involved in about a dozen cases that will come before the Court. They don't want to lose her liberal vote. There was no mention in the article as to who would decide which Justice would serve, but seeing as it's the President who appoints new Justices, the assumption is that the President would appoint the substitute.

This is unprecedented and I'm pretty sure unconstitutional. But when have the Democrats or Obama cared what the Constitution says? By the way, this could have a drastic effect on ordinary American citizens like you and me, so why has it not been on the news, and why was it buried on page 9 of the newspaper? You think somebody may be trying to slip it in with no one noticing?

"Backups for justices under consideration." The Dallas Morning News; August 10, 2010; p. 9A.