E.J. Dionne’s Strange Sense Of Equilibrium

Equilibrium is the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced, resulting in no net change. (2) in physics The state of a body at rest or in uniform motion in which the resultant of all forces on it is zero. (3) in chemistry The state of a reaction in which the rates of the forward and reverse reactions are the same. (4) Mental balance.

Today I read The Advocate (Baton Rouge) and inspected the latest source of liberal meconium offered by E.J. Dionne.

“E.J.” Dionne, Jr. is a political commentator, a columnist for The Washington Post and worked as a reporter for The New York Times. He’s contracted with the Washington Post Writers Group for syndication. A frequent critic of the Bush Administration, Dionne has a liberal viewpoint and was a regular critic of the George W. Bush’s administration. His credentials as a liberal mouthpiece are set in concrete.

Dionne, in a column titled: “HIGH COURT SEEING ITSELF AS THE HIGHEST U.S. AUTHORITY” stated his opinion in opposition to conservative members of the court becoming “judicial activists” in favor of dismantling ObamaCare.

It’s really a reach to define this as comedic because the irony sits in the fact the kettle’s screaming the pot’s black. Mr. Dionne should remember these words: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

Remember? This was when Sonia Sotomayor pandering to an audience, let the cat out of the bag she and her colleagues of like thought were better equipped to decide legal debates and thus, direct national policy. Also, Elena Kagan, as U.S. Solicitor General, was instrumental in the development and drafting of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare. She sits on the bench with her prejudices and theories set in stone and can weigh in on a subject already set in her mind.

Dionne says “it fell to the court’s liberals… to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches.”  Yes, but doesn’t it also say laws controverted for their suspected unconstitutionality shall be decided by the Supreme Court?

Dionne says this like the legislative branches get legislation right EVERY time. In any legislature we’re just as likely to have bills offered to make a Mint Julep a “state” alcoholic beverage as anything else. Federal legislators many times start their storied careers in local politics. Congress (and state legislatures) regularly produce, offer, advance and pass legislation of value to nobody but themselves. They made Insider Trading illegal for all except themselves back in the thirties. Until they passed legislation this year making it illegal for them as well, they became wealthy while taxing the doo-doo out of the middle-class. So much for legislative power resting in our government’s elected branches indicating integrity in Congress.

Here’s a lesson in Civics 100 (not even 101). This is rudimentary: this government is NOT a democracy. It’s a Republic with three (3) separate branches alleged to be responsible to participate in government on an equal footing with each other. No high court can see itself as the highest U.S. authority. It’s part of a pyramidal structure assuring no one branch may displace another in favor of despotism. Pyramidal suggests solid and structurally secure if it is equilateral (even, and thus, equally strong on all sides). Violate this fundamental rule of equilibrium and the pyramid (nation) falls.

But again the irony. Barack Obama regularly supersedes Congress with Executive Orders because Congress isn’t giving him what he wants. His petulant egotism shows why the Constitution was written as it was.

The Supreme Court is the check placed in line with the legislators so there can be no collusion between the Congress and Presidency in the drafting of laws against the best interests of the people. Legislatures and Presidents can’t be trusted to self-police. They must be held in check. That’s why it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change the way the court works.

It doesn’t have ascendancy but commands autonomy, and with that produces equilibrium.

Thanks for listening.

Interested in more national news? We've got you covered! See More National News
Previous Article
Next Article
Join the Conversation - Download the Speakeasy App.

Trending on The Hayride

No trending posts were found.