Slow motion coup at SCOTUS

James Fallows asks what would we say if this was happening in another country:

* First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don't even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.

* Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology..

* Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them..

* Meanwhile their party's representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation -- and appointments, especially to the courts..

* And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party's majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it -- even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party's presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.

With due respect to James, I think they got the headline right the first time. Looking at the court's decisions today, particularly their failure to revisit Citizens United in the Montana case, despite overwhelming evidence that "dark money" is corrupting our electoral process, if it's not a slow motion coup, then what on earth are we supposed to call it? .

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]