THE STUMP APRIL 9, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Peggy Noonan, in her weekly column in the Wall Street Journal weekend edition, this one headlined, “Oh, For Some Kennedyesque Grace”:
The other day an experienced and accomplished Democratic lawyer spoke, with dismay, of the president's earlier remarks on the ObamaCare litigation. Mr. Obama had said: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” He referred to the court as “an unelected group of people” that might “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
It was vaguely menacing, and it garnered broad criticism. In the press it was characterized as a “brushback”—when a pitcher throws the ball close to a batter's head to rattle him, to remind him he can be hurt.
The lawyer had studied under Archibald Cox. Cox, who served as John F. Kennedy’s Solicitor General, liked to tell his students of the time in 1962 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Engel v. Vitale, a landmark ruling against school prayer.
The president feared a firestorm. The American people would not like it. He asked Cox for advice on what to say. Cox immediately prepared a long memo on the facts of the case, the history and the legal merits. Kennedy read it and threw it away. Dry data wouldn't help. Kennedy thought. What was the role of a president at such a time? And this is what he said: We're all going to have to pray more in our homes.
The decision, he said, was a reminder to every American family “that we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity,” and in this way “we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of our children.” He accepted the court's decision, didn’t rile the populace, and preserved respect for the court while using its controversial ruling to put forward a good idea.
It was beautiful. One misses that special grace.
Mimi Alford, in her newly released memoir about her time working as an intern in the Kennedy White House, as a 19-year-old rising college sophomore:
Dave Powers [a top Kennedy aide] was sitting poolside while the President and I swam lazy circles around each other, splashing playfully. Dave had removed his jacket and loosened his tie in the warm air of the pool, but he was otherwise fully clothed. He was sitting on a towel, with his pants leg rolled up, and his bare feet dangling in the water.
The President swam over and whispered in my ear. “Mr. Powers looks a little tense,” he said. “Would you take care of it?”
It was a dare, but I knew exactly what he meant. This was a challenge to give Dave Powers oral sex. I don’t think the President thought I’d do it, but I’m ashamed to say that I did. It was a pathetic, sordid, scene, and is very hard for me to think about today. Dave was jolly and obedient as I stood in the shallow end of the pool and performed my duties. The President silently watched.
Noonan must not have heard about that bit, though everyone was talking about it just a few weeks ago. Or, who knows, maybe such a scene still qualifies someone—in some vague, ineffable way—as possessing “that special grace.”
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
11 comments
The difference between Noonan and Alford is that Alford regrets the sordid things she did to ingratiate herself to powerful men.
- GeoffG
April 9, 2012 at 9:25am
Nice one, GeoffG. On the substance of her column, Peggy Noonan probably realizes that state-sponsored school prayer was not a Democratic Party platform in national elections and did not constitute the major legislative achievement of the Kennedy Administration. If she inquired with some legal scholars, she might also have learned that there did not exist a solid body of Supreme Court precedent, dating back 75 years or so, that explicitly gave the Federal government and Congress broad discretion to require school children to engage in state-sponsored school prayer and readings from the New Testament by their teachers. But why make distinctions like that when you have a good story to tell! After all, it's how she made her name and career the first time around.
- wildboy
April 9, 2012 at 9:33am
Is this disconnected Monday? Here's my contribution. "Grace" has become one of the most popular names for girls. It means favor or blessing. According to Alfred Hitchcock, Grace Kelly was the most promiscuous woman he ever knew, as she provided lots of favors and blessings.
- rayward
April 9, 2012 at 10:28am
Yesterday being Easter, I should point out that "grace" has a somewhat different meaning to Christians. Yes, it means blessing, but not that blessing.
- rayward
April 9, 2012 at 10:37am
If the point is that JFK could both boorish and intimidating to women in private as well as witty and surefooted in public political debate, then somehow I believe the point has been taken many times. I wonder what Noonan thinks of Franklin Roosevelt's "I welcome their hatred."
- ironyroad
April 9, 2012 at 11:49am
"It was vaguely menacing, and it garnered broad criticism. In the press it was characterized as a "brushback"—when a pitcher throws the ball close to a batter's head to rattle him, to remind him he can be hurt." And why not? From Jackson declaiming (or not, depending on the historian you believe) "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" to FDR's court packing plan in 1937, there is a long history of Presidents brushing back the court. The court does not and cannot exist in a vacuum - we are no more the the nation today we were at the end of the 18th century, or when the post-civil-war amendments were passed, than one is the same person at 90 as at 9. The court must accordingly adapt. For the president to remind the Supreme Courts of this would seem to be amongst his duties.
- IowaBeauty
April 9, 2012 at 11:58am
What about the special "grace" that the Republicans routinely use to describe the allegedly liberal, out-of-control judiciary? Compare Obama's comments to how Republicans routinely talk about the courts, and the president sounds downright gentile. The fact is that the conservatives on this court are wildly out of step with public opinion and don't care a bit. He's right to say something--especially when it was in no way insulting, but rather a reference to the philosophy of judicial restraint to which many of them allegedly adhere and to which Republicans routinely refer when interviewing judicial nominees. Frankly, if you subtract the context of the ACA, Obama's words sound like something Jeff Sessions would say.
- propjoe
April 9, 2012 at 12:44pm
Geoff, excellent!
I don't know about anyone else, but I've never been able to get anyone to perform oral sex for my friends on command; so there may indeed be a form of "grace" that Mz Noonan admires there.
- GSpinks
April 9, 2012 at 3:00pm
When President Obama criticized Citizens United, Chief Justice Roberts called the State of the Union address a "pep rally" and nobody condemed the Chief Justice for it. Now, I believe it is perfectly within the function of the U.S. President to advise us his disagreement with a Supreme Court decision. I don't think it is within the purview of the Chief Justice's job description to criticize the executive branch or the legislative branch if it is not within the confines of a legal opinion. I believe that only Chief Justice Roberts has crossed the line.
- Nusholtz
April 9, 2012 at 3:29pm
Peggy Noonan is a mealy mouthed hypocrite. I sometimes wonder whom I cannot stand more ... her or the boorish louts of talk radio.
- NR409654
April 9, 2012 at 6:40pm
I agree with Noonan completely. All we will have to do is to get more healthcare at home, from our loved ones and ourselves.
- harasan
April 10, 2012 at 11:13am