SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'Preserving the Balance' by Maintaining a Conservative Supreme Court
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,
Feb 15, 2016
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Steve Rendall
Steve Rendall is a FAIR contributing writer. His work has received awards from Project Censored, and has won the praise of noted journalists such as Les Payne, Molly Ivins and Garry Wills.
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.
Steve Rendall
Steve Rendall is a FAIR contributing writer. His work has received awards from Project Censored, and has won the praise of noted journalists such as Les Payne, Molly Ivins and Garry Wills.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.