Polman's High-Court Postscript

Dick Polman’s column in yesterday’s Inquirer about his belief that the Supreme Court isn’t a major issue with most voters may be true at the moment, but we’ll see whether or not he’s right come Election Day next November.

As noted here, the Supremes just finished the most pro-activist, pro-business-and-conservative-boilerplate-issues term seen in this country for decades, ruling on a variety of issues from whistleblower status to the so-called “partial birth” abortion act to school desegregation and student free speech. The impact of these rulings is going to sink in and evolve over time and be evaluated through the muddy prism of Dubya’s failed, utter nightmare of a presidency.

My biggest gripe, though, is that Polman, as is so often the case with “concern troll” columnists, under the guise of trying to inform, ultimately couches his observations in such a manner so that they end up being remembered as nothing but contributions to the right-wing narrative. Polman, for one, is more skilled at this than, say, Jonathan Last or (hah hah) Kevin Ferris, but the end results are similar.

For example, while Polman properly summarizes some of what the horrendous high court has wrought, he sarcastically reinforces his point about voters not caring with some sort of imagined breakfast-table discussion between a husband and wife making fun of the possibility of discussing stare decisis in the midst of buttering a piece of toast and ogling the latest photo of this week’s beautiful but stupid male or female celebrity in trouble (and if there's one thing I know about, by the way, it's sarcasm :-).

Polman also notes that “the experts” tell him that most Americans aren’t comfortable discussing the high court, and his column also points out that “legal conservatives have nurtured a farm team of like-minded scholars” while totally ignoring the abundance of liberals and progressives online, in our educational institutions and “think tanks” who are part of the ongoing effort to advance people-powered politics.

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of reading these meta-data commentary columns from journalistic know-it-alls like Polman. I don’t need anyone at the Inquirer or anywhere else to suggest to me what I think about a particular issue. If I don’t know at the time, I can assure you that I’m in the process of making up my mind on the matter.

Just report the story, and go away.

Update: Actually, after coming across this (wish I'd found it earlier), I think I was being way too kind to Polman. A minimal amount of investigation on his part would have produced this item that appeared in the New York Times on July 4th, which shows that both the Democratic Party leadership and members on all levels are refusing to take this hijacking of our principles, to say nothing of basic decency, by this Supreme Court lying down.