Liberal rag: "Why do we still tolerate the Supreme Court? All we have to do is ignore it!"
Already this term the conservative justices look poised to strike down an anti-gerrymandering law [apparently the author thinks gerrymandering--creating weirdly-shaped political districts to ensure a minority candidate gets elected--is a great thing].... The court could also strip 8.2 million Americans of their health insurance thanks to a malicious, mendacious lawsuit. … If we want to curb the Supreme Court’s power, all we have to do is ignore it."Why do we still tolerate the Supreme Court," says the liberal, when “all we have to do is ignore it.”
Say, that's a really simple, catchy solution. And it doesn't get all tied up in that stupid "Constitution" thingy. How very...liberal Democrat of you, Slate writers.
After all, the Supreme Court has no real purpose. The Founders--who, as liberals never pass up the chance to tell us, were a bunch of dumb, privileged white men whose real goal was to maintain white male privilege--didn't actually have a good reason to establish the Court. Maybe they felt having three branches of government made a triangle that offered more interesting possibilities than just two. If it serves no critical purpose, of course, it makes it far easier to propose that we just "ignore it."
Life is so much simpler for people who can ignore and dismiss details. Do the mullahs of Iran have a different understanding of the so-called "framework agreement" than Kerry and Obama? Don't worry, it's probably not important.
Should we bother checking? Should Congress--aided by former diplomats like Kissenger--examine the agreement to see if it's merely vaporware? Nancy Pelosi claims that's too much trouble. According to her office the framework agreement is "founded on vigilance and enforcement, and these negotiations must be allowed to proceed unencumbered.”
Gosh, Nancy, I didn't know you'd read the framework agreement. Oh that's right, you haven't. Because not a single word is written down. But you still feel free to claim it's "founded on vigilance and enforcement" because...? Do please tell us. Oh, that's right: Because your emperor said so. The perky, nuance-loving Marie Harf said so.
When you have the media on your side a great many things can be airily dismissed with a wave of the hand. Thus Al-Qaeda are just “some folks”--"a JV team." The Constitution is a 200-year-old document--written by white men--that no longer has any relevance to the United States. Obama spends four years presumably reading official emails from his Secretary of State without ever noticing they're not from a dot-gov address. Indeed, no one in the entire White Hut ever noticed.
There’s an air of such unassailable invincibility and an eagerness to achieve “progress” by executive order, or with unwritten agreements that they're unwilling to allow the senate to review, that one wonders whether a single person in the administration has the slightest acquaintance with reality.
Like Tom and Daisy in "The Great Gatsby," members of Obama's regime go about governance with a kind of vast carelessness. Others are left to clean up the wreckage they cause.
The only thing certain is that if everything blows up, everyone in the emperor's administration will be utterly convinced that a) it's not their fault; and b) “someone will fix it.” After all, someone has always fixed every problem in the past. And great minds--like Obama's, Reid's, Pelosi's, Clinton's--should never have to worry about trivial details.
H/T Wretchard at Belmont Club.