My thanks to Peggy Noonan for nailing so beautifully the way current conservatives see the political world.
In the 02/18/16 Wall Street Journal, Ms. Noonan makes the argument that President Obama should hand off naming anyone to fill Justice Scalia's seat because it would alter the court's balance, inflicting great damage to our nation:
When the court is roughly balanced, 5-4, the public is allowed to assume some rough approximation of justice will occur—that something that looks like justice will be handed down.
There will be chafing and disappointments. ObamaCare will be upheld. Yay! Boo! Gay marriage will be instituted across the land. Yay! Boo!
The closeness of the vote suggests both sides got heard. The closeness contributes to an air of credibility. That credibility helps people accept the court’s rulings.
When the balance of the court tips too much one way, it invites people to see injustice and bully politics. It invites unease and protest.
Translate "roughly balanced" as meaning "when conservative justices hold the majority." Even if President Obama named a clear-cut liberal to fill the position - rather than a politically palatable moderate - the balance would still hold, albeit in the other direction.
If Ms. Noonan's point really was fear of overall imbalance, we can assure her that all is well.
My profound thanks to Peggy for perfectly capturing a point I've struggled to make with friends. A conservative majority of one is fine with her. Flip the exact same scenario to a progressive majority & it "invites people to see injustice & bully politics... invites unease & protest."
Well said, Ms. Noonan - just not terribly well thought-out.
Credits:
quotationof.com
waytofamous.com
paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment