The sound of echoes.
Over the past two months, as the nation has watched a new president drop one depth charge after another — banning Muslim refugees; ordering the demolition of broadly accepted rules protecting air, water and American consumers; flaunting conflict-of-interest and other ethical standards honored by his predecessors in office — Americans have looked to the courts, the one aspirationally nonpartisan branch of government left to them, to stop him.
Yet of late their faith in the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, the system’s ultimate arbiter, has been flagging.
A fascinating position, that “Americans” have looked to the court to stop all the things progressives despise. Did anyone tell the New York Times editorial board that Hillary Clinton didn’t win? Do they not realize that Americans and progressives are not synonymous? Are they unaware of how the American system of governance works, and that it’s not left to the Supreme Court to compensate for the refusal of Americans to elect Democrats to the presidency, Senate, House of Representatives, governorships and statehouses across the nation?
No wonder the Times is so confused. Nobody explained to them how America and the Supreme Court works.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Plus, they said “flaunting” when they should have said “flouting.” Pretty bad, considering it’s the NYT.
That is deeply hurtful to the editors, who tried their very best.
“No wonder the Times is so confused. Nobody explained to them how America and the Supreme Court works.”
Almost as if we’ve moved on from a post-factual society to a post-reality one. Don’t like the way things are? Then pretend it’s not happening.
Well, it’s not like Hillary wasn’t elected president and Gorsuch isn’t an illegitimate justice, right?
Quoting from NYT:
Right. 5-4 decisions that go one way are all Roberts’ fault. smh. Thanks, NYT
5-4 decisions that go against progressive values are “narrow conservative interests.” 5-4 decisions that go for progressive values are correct. If they go wrong, it must be someone’s fault.
What of 6-3 decisions written by Roberts that go for progressive values. (Not that I’m thinking of King v. Burwell.) Do they not count in the NYT calculus?
They will count when Trump gets a second pick. Because that will really, really violate the will of (some of) the people.
As I see it, “progressives” in denial have sought to use the courts to defeat the election, and are disappointed that only some of the courts have gone along. It will be interesting to see if this new court-based obstruction strategy ends or persists after the Trump Administration. Perhaps this, too, will become a permanent feature of the perpetual partisan bickering.
As SHG often points out, both sides use the same tactics. The Republicans were in denial about the passage of the ACA and tried to use the courts to defeat it.
While I’m not sure the ACA is a good analogy, as the constitutionality of laws (as opposed to the judicial redefinition and extension of law) are one of the reasons why we have a judiciary. That said, it’s hard to come up with an apt comparison, since the Dems haven’t held Congress since 2010. Maybe the better comparison was the birthers with Obama, which is a particularly ironic analogy.
Progressives in denial? Is that something like progressives in cognitive dissonance, or did we get it backwards? Perhaps counterfeit dissonance is a little too complicated/wordy for the average slob to wrap his pea-pickin’ head around.
So where were we? “Use the courts”,…”some of the courts”, “court-based obstruction[ism]”,… you , Sir, are making us crazy,… dizzy-crazy. “Ends or persists”,… who gives a FF? All’s well that ends well, the bard of Stratford said. WWIII, bring it on. The U.S. of A. is in the catbird seat. We shall annihilate the disbelievers in our open, democratic free society. (Made that up meself!)
“Justice Scalia would pal[l] around with Dick Cheney”? Say it ain’t so!
“…responsibility for corrosion of the rule of law will be his [Robo-Roberts Rules of Order]”. What are you saying? Who are you talking to? The Walking Dead! The so-called responsibility may be absolutely his, but will he, or will he not, “take responsibility”? And how might he make restituition? How much is in his pension and 401KKK? Inquiring Minds demand answers, and not evasive ones.
Therein lies the dilemma for all time and all good men upon earth to ponder and act upon.
SHG,
I hate to make a serious (in my feeble mind) comment on the New York Times. The Times deserves the ridicule it receives at this place. I enjoy reading that comeuppance.
Nevertheless, the Times remains a wonderful newspaper. I wish the editorial board was as competent as many of the reporters who work and write for the Gray Lady. (Forgive the misogyny, please.)
Sadly, the editorial board has driven the paper into a ditch when it comes to intellectually honest people. That is a shame because we need the New York Times to help thoughtful people understand the world around them.
I hope you keep savaging the Times editorial board’s output. While it might be a fragile hope, calling the editorial board to account might just be worth your effort. I appreciate your effort.
All the best.
RGK
Thanks, Judge. The Times has some great (and honest) writers. Matt Apuzzo comes immediately to mind. It also has some “advocacy journalists” who write commentary as if it was news. And we do need the Times, but an honest Times. We would be far worse off without it.