We seem to think that the Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics. Maybe it is. That’s what we’d like to think until we’ve lost a sitting justice and another must be chosen to fill the empty seat. Within moments of hearing about Scalia’s death we ran to our respective ends of the field and picked up our weapons, ready to pressure the other two branches of government to agree on a specific shade of conservatism or liberalism when appointing his replacement.
One of the solutions to the frantic search for “balance” on the Court could be, at least, a systemic change on the Court in the form term limits. Norm Ornstein proposes an 18-year limit, and at least one Courtologist — Erwin Chemerinsky — agrees. They are not alone.
“The Constitution was written at a time when life tenure meant living into your 50s because that’s what life expectancy was,” legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, author of two books on the Supreme Court, has noted. “Thirty-year tenures are not what the framers had in mind.” …ChristopherIngraham,Wonkblog,WaPo
Then, too, it’s worth wondering about how to handle what many of us perceive as deep divisions, out-of-control partisanship and daily reminders of extremism in today’s politics. Paul Krugman tackles that issue, starting with an acknowledgement of “an especially dramatic rise in “negative partisanship” — distrust of and disdain for the other side.” Certainly one irritant has been, for about a decade, the use of carefully groomed language for one side to vilify the other. A decade ago, the discussion within the media and among political reporters turned to changes in the official rhetoric used by the GOP to describe its opponents. NPR decided to challenge the deliberate distortions of partisan-speak.
There are often several ways to irritate people — some direct, some more cryptic. Republicans have a way of irritating Democrats that also has frustrated some listeners.
They don’t like to hear NPR journalists or guests use the noun ‘Democrat’ as an adjective.
As in: “What Democrat lawmakers want to do — hang with me here,” said NPR Correspondent Andrea Seabrook, who covers Congress, “is pass the changes that they want to this bill in the House at the same time that they pass the Senate bill itself.”
Josephine Bennett, a reporter/host for Georgia Public Broadcasting recently emailed asking about NPR’s policy after she heard Seabrook on Morning Edition about the upcoming health care bill.
NPR’s policy is to call parties what they call themselves, said Ron Elving, NPR’s senior Washington editor. The proper name is the Democratic Party. Democrat is a noun and Democratic is the adjective to describe the party.
“When using democratic or Democratic as an adjective, it should be the adjectival form with ‘ic’ on the end,” said Elving. “We should not refer to Democrat ideas or Democrat votes. Any deviation from that by NPR reporters on air or on line should be corrected.”
While Seabrook’s words were later corrected in the transcript, they are not corrected on air.
Initially, I thought what’s the big deal? One listener said it would be like calling me by another name than my own and thinking that’s ok.
It turns out this is a perceived slight that goes back decades.
“Why Republicans asked for years, should we allow the Democrats to get away with the adjective ‘democratic’?” wrote New York Times language maven William Safire in 1984. “As a result, partisan Republicans, especially those who had been head of the Republican National Committee, called the opposition ‘the Democrat party.'” …Ombudsman,NPR
President Bush embraced the rhetoric. Many of us thought it (and Bush) idiotic. But then we developed no less irritating terms to describe Republicans and their conservative supporters. Still, I don’t think it’s unfair to point out that while Bush allowed himself to become part of this process, President Obama hasn’t fallen into the same trap. He has fought hard for clarity and for Democratic policies without joining many of his supporters in angry condemnation of Republican bottom-feeding.
Krugman is right that this degree of partisanship isn’t just a phase. We’re in trouble. And the trouble comes not equally from both sides but from one bitter and persistent group.
… There are huge differences in tactics and attitudes. Democrats never tried to extort concessions by threatening to cut off U.S. borrowing and create a financial crisis; Republicans did. Democrats don’t routinely deny the legitimacy of presidents from the other party; Republicans did it to both Bill Clinton and Mr. Obama. The G.O.P.’s new Supreme Court blockade is, fundamentally, in a direct line of descent from the days when Republicans used to call Mr. Clinton “your president.”
So how does this get resolved? One answer could be a Republican sweep — although you have to ask, did the men on that stage Saturday convey the impression of a party that’s ready to govern? Or maybe you believe — based on no evidence I’m aware of — that a populist rising from the left is ready to happen any day now. But if divided government persists, it’s really hard to see how we avoid growing chaos. ..Krugman,NYT
The chance for the appointment of a new justice, embraced by both parties, seems minimal. The speed with which Mitch McConnell made this a partisan issue is hardly surprising but no less disappointing.
Cross posted from Prairie Weather
graphic via shutterstock.com