Bush's revamped Supreme Court dispensed another prize to the GOP today, but Linda Greenhouse of the Times misses a key point when she
writes that their decision to uphold most of Texas' bitterly-challenged 2003 redistricting plan "was something of a vindication for
DeLay," its chief architect. But the Court's decision was not a "vindication," it was the long sought consolidation of a carefully planned power grab by the Right.
Characterizing today's decision as anything other than a political gift from a right-leaning Court to the GOP assumes a kind of political purity the Supreme Court has never possessed. Let's take a step back and note that the Times has written countless articles breaking down the political affiliations and ideological leanings of members and prospective members of the Court; the idea that presidents appoint those who they think will promote their political philosophy is nothing new, but for today's story, the Times chose to momentarily ignore the interdependence of politics and jurisprudence, and play it exactly as the Republicans want it played: that America's legal elite have blessed Texas' gerrymandering based on the clear light of legal reasoning, not party loyalty. (A follow-up story buries the reasons why today's decision will not benefit Democrats in other states; why its implications are limited strictly to what happened in Texas in 2003.)
The idea that members of the Supreme Court (or any high court) may be influenced by party preference is one of the many third rails of political journalism. It's fair game to try construct the ideological loyalties of members of the Supreme and Federal Courts, but to even suggest that these members could make rulings influenced by their affiliation with a particular political party is anathema. Because it cuts so quickly to the core of how we think about our political process, the notion is treated almost as conspiracy theory (witness most media's toothless treatment of the Supreme Court's decision that gave the presidency to Bush in 2000).
The rule against speculating on the party loyalties of jurists is a profoundly pro-establishment, "aren't we glad the system is pure" sort of guideline most journalists have willingly adopted. It helps corral into the political fringe those who suggest that the system is not, in fact, pure, that it is shot through with rot, and desecrated daily by swindlers and con artists like Tom Delay and Samuel Alito.
Only marginally better stories on the decision appear in the Washington Post, one of which dumbly concludes with Delay's mouth-vomit that "t's always worth it to stand up for the Constitution," while the other incorrectly leads with the speculation that the Court's decision will lead to similar redistricting fights throughout the country. But the Court's reasoning applies only to court-ordered redistricting, not redistricting approved by state legislatures. In most states with similar systems, Repubs and Dems share the governor's office and the legislature, making domination by one party impossible. For the Post to repeat the idea that this decision will help both parties obscures the fact that in this case, the Republicans flat out won.
* * Always Read More at Times/WaPo Watch * * 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(19 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
