“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass
Cutting one of the Justices in half balances nine. Lewis Carroll would have a field day with Mr. Woodward and his ilk in the American ruling class.
Will Obama engineer/commit another DINO sellout, "compromising" with RepubliCons to name an "acceptable" scotus nominee - choosing a "moderate" (AKA tool of big-money status quo profits over people & environment, etc) to "secure his legacy"? I haven't seen any legacy worthy the name yet, mostly collusion, capitulation to big-money, craven collapse and political maneuvering as the end-all, not principled leadership under fire, not societies critical civilian needs, not strong environmental protections - instead a focus on big-money and corporate dominance.
Also, "Rahm Emanuel, (that paragon of public service & integrity) will have overriding control--if not minute-by-minute involvement--just as he did with Justice Sotomayor."
I suppose any so-called "moderate" nominee must by definition be a supporter of Obama's really-big legacy the TPP, TTIP et al, global corporate Trojan Horses! Would Obama push-thru a "corporate" justice to forestall a more "liberal" justice by a potential next Dem Prez?
An ego-driven desire to name and confirm a Justice maybe should be put-off until after the potential election of Bernie Sanders........ just getting any justice confirmed may not be good for progressive issues or our future.......after all the other "collaborations" and "compromise" with R's and corporate power, I do not really trust Obama to nominate a person dedicated to the Common Good, the people, rather than just a token/shill he can compromise through an obstructionist Congress.........
Thank you, Mr. Rendall for this timely and right-on analysis.
And for this in particular:
"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."
Other ways that the strategy stated above is done is by consistently taking what soldiers do (or the make-war machine) and attributing it to citizens, or using terms like Americans (to toss everyone into the same uniform basket), or "us" or "we." These frames by their nature narrow the pool of opinions, manufacture consent, render opposition to policies invisible or irrelevant, and by eliminating any alternative narrative... not only do they narrow the field of the possible; they also cause history to repeat since this narrow feedback loop can do nothing more than repeat itself ad infinitum!
There are many petitions right now asking senators to pledge not to block Obama's nominee whoever he or she might be.
I am not signing those.
This knee-jerk reaction can come back to bite us all when Obama nominates some right-wind conservative "compromise".
Just as it is wrong for the Republican candidates to pledge to block any nominee, it is wrong to ask the senators to pledge to not block whatever nominee come up.
We need to see who the nominee is and judge them on their merits, not on who nominates them.
My fear is that Obama will nominate a poor choice because he is right of center to begin with, and he will reason that a conservative candidate that he chooses is better than no candidate at all.
It will be better to wait and let Bernie nominate someone.
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.
"Say goodnight Gracie."
No one is mentioning recess appointments?!
The Senate is not in session.
Obama could go before the nation on this very day and say,
"Following republican precedent, I am appointing Lani Guinier to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, as your great President Eisenhower appointed three persons for vacancies on the court during recesses of the Senate."
Following REPUBLICAN precedent, Obama could appoint someone to the Supreme Court this very minute. Eisenhower did it three times!
If Sanders were to win the election, you would see immediate, fierce efforts by the lame duck Senate to get Obama to nominate a "compromise" justice to end run Bernie. I won't predict how that would turn out ...
Balance? LOL , the Court has NINE friigin seats doesn't Woodward know how to count? Nine precluded balance unless one is King Solomon. The idea that it's been somehow balanced because of Scalia is a pathetic joke. Scalia has been arguably one of the most Reactionary Judges in the Courts history. I cannot think of another Justice (oxymoron as far as Scalia is concerned) that has done as much harm to this country and it's people then Anton Scalia. Woodward as usual lately is speaking out of his ass.
He doesn't have the integrity, commitment to progressive issues (a joke at this point in time) choosing to further empower big-money and corporate interests, or the courage to do such a thing.....unfortunate but true, IMO.......a greater disappointment I have never seen......
"Preserving the balance" means for Obama and his pro-corporate banker/Wall St views, nominating a pro big-money - big-business candidate to replace Scalia then convincing the RepubliCons that he or she is their best choice - a position he has taken many times - the prone position........craven in the extreme.
We will see this sell-out play-out sooner rather than later methinks, and accelerate if Sanders seems to be continuing to energize the electorate and defeat Shillary.......a win in Nevada will begin the process, and increasing support from Black Americans, Latinos, and white demographic groups nationwide will seal the deal.
Ooh-ooh, let's practice Old Testament Solomon behavior and cut Roberts or Kennedy in half to maintain that crucial conservative balance that Woodward thinks must be maintained!
Would anyone expect the onus to compromise be on the president if he were a Republican? A Republican would shove a right wing radical nomination down our throats quicker than you can blink an eye! (Even if he/she were replacing a leftist.)
Why is it that Democrats have to cave in, but Republicans don't?
Please, Obama, don't cave in again.
"[L]et’s not do anything radical”
Like ruling that corporations are persons
The way I read the current recess appointment law, in 2014 SCOTUS overturned some of Obama's recess appointments and said that "the Senate is in session when the Senate says it's in session" (Scalia.) So those clowns don't even have to be in DC, much less doing any actual work. They just need to say that they are "in session."
Well, appoint someone like Guinier who is in her 40s.
The MSM is vilely servile to the Repiglicans!
No, no, it's absolutely true. Had you placed Scalia on one end of a see-saw and the other eight opposite, it would have rested in perfect equipoise.
Pity four of his fellows crawled over onto his half of the board. Wasn't much fun at recess.
The Supreme Court has been skewing our government and political and economic system further and further to the right for decades. In order to bring balance, it's necessary to skew the court to the left end of the political spectrum to undo the damage that's already been done.
This from the SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/
"The bottom line is that, if President Obama is to successfully name a new Supreme Court Justice, he will have to run the gauntlet of the Republican-controlled Senate, and prevail there. The only real chance of that: if he picks a nominee so universally admired that it would be too embarrassing for the Senate not to respond."
Another FIX has been in on recess appointments since 2014. And we refer to our nation as a democracy (in name only, in practice Hell no)