General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums‘Preserving the Balance’ by Maintaining a Conservative Supreme Court
2/14/2016
FAIR Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
On CNNs State of the Union today (2/14/16), Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward laid out the potential minefield posed by a liberal Supreme Court appointment to everyone, including Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House.
Because Scalia was a conservative, said Woodward,
the Democrats will say, Gee, were going to put a fifth liberal on the Supreme Court. The Republican nominee can go out and say, Were going to preserve the balance.
This is a unique understanding of the term balance, meaning a court with a conservative majority. (Dont get me started on the assumption that the other four are liberal
.) Though framed as a GOP view, this was clearly embraced by Woodard, who explained how most undecideds and independents would view the appointment of anyone but a conservative as a radical move:
In the world now of real voters, I think it is the persuadable voter or the independent whos likely, in a positive way, to respond to the idea that, Yeah, lets preserve the balance, lets not do anything radical.
Woodward closed the segment citing a 1970s Washington Star headline on the occasion of Justice William O. Douglas death, which he claimed said that everyone, left, right and center, is going to miss Justice Douglas. I think its the same for Justice Scalia, said Woodward.
Presenting the views of the power elite as those of the public, no matter how detached those views are from actual public sentiment and opinion, is what the national media are about. This largely explains why dullards and fantasists like Woodward thrive in it.
http://fair.org/home/preserving-the-balance-by-maintaining-a-conservative-supreme-court/
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)except maybe the guy that sold cannoli.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)CincyDem
(6,386 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)the right wing can continue to set the terms of every policy discussion. Whichever side sets the terms of the debate will always win the debate.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)out maneuver the cons, although it may take until we win seats in the Senate
in November and our chances are very good to do so. Obama does not lose power until January next year.
In the mean time, the 4 to 4 splits are not a bad thing, as I understand it, the lower court rulings hold
in some of the most important cases.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And if a Democrat wins, will Congress wait another 4 years? Assuming the worst case of a GOP controlled Senate.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)meetings and public pressure..I feel there are means before President Obama
to get what he wants. The longer Republicans don't appear reasonable not being
one of them..I'm not sure they care, they'll use it as part of their campaign
strategy. But Obama in the end, can wait it out too, I'm not seeing a reason
he needs to panic and I doubt he is or will.
SamKnause
(13,110 posts)Those in the know certainly don't know very much, if anything.
They do not have their finger on the pulse of what is happening in this country.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,437 posts)We have to accept that they are going to nominate conservative-leaning justices. When we are in the WH, Republicans are just going to have to learn to accept that we will nominate left-leaning justices. That is the reality. There is also no precedent for expecting Republicans to nominate left-leaning justices. There should be no expectation from anybody that Democrats should replace conservative justices with like-minded individuals in order to preserve some kind of ludicrous notion of "balance".
avebury
(10,952 posts)Does he really think that he could convince anybody that, if a Republican was in the WH, that he/she would nominate a liberal should god forbid something happen to Ruth Bader Ginsberg? You better believe that would go for a youngish ultra conservative judge to replace her.
The Republicans do not believe in the balance of power. They only believe in total, permanent Republican/Conservative dominance for the rest of existence.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)Remember who he replaced on the court....
I do not remember anyone saying Bush should have appointed a liberal to replace Thurgood.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)As much as I enjoy his books (The War Room and State of Denial were two of the most informative sources about the Bush administration I've read to date) , as an editorial writer/political analyst, Woodward seems little more than a hack, ignoring any appearance of partisanship or bias.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)like they did when they replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas? They're such hypocrites.