Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:53 PM Feb 2016

‘Preserving the Balance’ by Maintaining a Conservative Supreme Court

2/14/2016

FAIR Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

On CNN‘s 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, we’re going to put a fifth liberal on the Supreme Court.” The Republican nominee can go out and say, “We’re going to preserve the balance.”

This is a unique understanding of the term “balance,” meaning a court with a conservative majority. (Don’t 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 who’s likely, in a positive way, to respond to the idea that, “Yeah, let’s preserve the balance, let’s 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 it’s 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/

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
‘Preserving the Balance’ by Maintaining a Conservative Supreme Court (Original Post) Jefferson23 Feb 2016 OP
Nobody is going to miss Scalia sharp_stick Feb 2016 #1
And the tool, Bob Woodward. n/t Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #2
"Leave the pillow...take the cannoli". a la Clemenza. n/t CincyDem Feb 2016 #4
Well done n/t sharp_stick Feb 2016 #6
Recommended. It is essential that the corporate media frame the issue so that guillaumeb Feb 2016 #3
They'll certainly try, like this Woodward twisted logic he uses. My bet is Obama will Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #5
Agreed. 4-4 splits mean in most cases that the lower court decision is upheld. guillaumeb Feb 2016 #9
No, that would not happen, imo. There are unknowns and a lot of behind the scenes Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #10
Clueless. SamKnause Feb 2016 #7
When Republicans are in the WH Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2016 #8
What a crock of bull avebury Feb 2016 #11
Pathetic, isn't it. n/t Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #12
Case in point - Clarence Thomas n2doc Feb 2016 #14
As much as I enjoy his books... LanternWaste Feb 2016 #13
Pretty much the consensus, well said. n/t Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #15
Preserve the balance Blue_In_AK Feb 2016 #16
Totally, and Woodward said so with such presumed authority, that cracked me up. n/t Jefferson23 Feb 2016 #17

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
3. Recommended. It is essential that the corporate media frame the issue so that
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 12:58 PM
Feb 2016

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)
5. They'll certainly try, like this Woodward twisted logic he uses. My bet is Obama will
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:03 PM
Feb 2016

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)
9. Agreed. 4-4 splits mean in most cases that the lower court decision is upheld.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:14 PM
Feb 2016

And if a Democrat wins, will Congress wait another 4 years? Assuming the worst case of a GOP controlled Senate.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
10. No, that would not happen, imo. There are unknowns and a lot of behind the scenes
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:19 PM
Feb 2016

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)
7. Clueless.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:13 PM
Feb 2016

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)
8. When Republicans are in the WH
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:13 PM
Feb 2016

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)
11. What a crock of bull
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:20 PM
Feb 2016

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.

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
14. Case in point - Clarence Thomas
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:40 PM
Feb 2016

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)
13. As much as I enjoy his books...
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:33 PM
Feb 2016

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.

Blue_In_AK

(46,436 posts)
16. Preserve the balance
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:00 PM
Feb 2016

like they did when they replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas? They're such hypocrites.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»‘Preserving the Balance’ ...