David Brooks: Why do I bother reading him?

I've given up on Thomas Friedman because he's a pie-eyed knucklehead most times, especially about the exact part of the world he's supposed to be such an expert on. So why do I continue to read Brooks (not all the time; if the headline seems like it's going to be a screed against rich blue-coast liberals I tune it out)?

Here's his stunning retardation of the day:

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.


Let's recast this.

When Warren wrote the Brown decision, it took the school segregation issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.

Yes, the kinds of segregation that would still exist today in the South would be legitimate because they would have been codified in law. That doesn't make them right.

The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution. That's why people who disagree go before it, for a little clarification. Unfortunately for one of those parties and the people that support it, what the court decides holds the entire country to its findings. Some decisions just can't be made at the local level, and I'm not exactly sure why Brooks would have it be that way.

I don't like this meme that judicial "activism" is bad. And I don't like that someone who is supposed to be a banner thinker for this country's flagship paper is legitimizing this meme. But beyond my personal likes and dislikes, again it shows that there is no alternative to the box in op-editorializing. You're either in it or not, with em or agin em.