One has to wonder these days about our definition of victory. A judge is approved for a Supreme Court seat by a margin of two votes, and this is declared, by the president and by the GOP, as "a great victory".
How so?
In the past, Justices were regularly approved by wide margins, represented by votes from both parties. For a party already in the majority to call squeaking through like this a great victory is nothing less than absurd. It is, if anything, a testimony to just how very broken our government is. In short, it is a great defeat for the notion that representatives are committed to representing the people rather than merely 'winning' one for their own party. Indeed, if winning a partisan vote is the standard to be striven for, the so-called 'victory' was ensured from the start given the simple majority of Republicans in the senate. The worthiness of the candidate him- or herself becomes a moot point.
I can only think that one would prefer to see a candidate elevated on the strength of his appeal in some measure to both parties. He is, after all, to be a Supreme Court Justice, not a partisan mascot.
When a closely contested football game is won through a poor call from the referee, we are not elated. We are disappointed. It is regretful, because it essentially nullifies both the victory and the defeat, for the result has been tainted. The glitch itself has won.
Many seem to have forgotten that ours is a democracy ideally devoted to serving as many as possible. To this end, moderation is the obvious key, and not the embrace of extreme positions on either the left or the right.
Ultimately, we did not approve a Supreme Court Justice. We merely reminded everyone that one party in the senate happens to have two more votes than the other.
How so?
In the past, Justices were regularly approved by wide margins, represented by votes from both parties. For a party already in the majority to call squeaking through like this a great victory is nothing less than absurd. It is, if anything, a testimony to just how very broken our government is. In short, it is a great defeat for the notion that representatives are committed to representing the people rather than merely 'winning' one for their own party. Indeed, if winning a partisan vote is the standard to be striven for, the so-called 'victory' was ensured from the start given the simple majority of Republicans in the senate. The worthiness of the candidate him- or herself becomes a moot point.
I can only think that one would prefer to see a candidate elevated on the strength of his appeal in some measure to both parties. He is, after all, to be a Supreme Court Justice, not a partisan mascot.
When a closely contested football game is won through a poor call from the referee, we are not elated. We are disappointed. It is regretful, because it essentially nullifies both the victory and the defeat, for the result has been tainted. The glitch itself has won.
Many seem to have forgotten that ours is a democracy ideally devoted to serving as many as possible. To this end, moderation is the obvious key, and not the embrace of extreme positions on either the left or the right.
Ultimately, we did not approve a Supreme Court Justice. We merely reminded everyone that one party in the senate happens to have two more votes than the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment