Here’s an email exchange I’ve had with a good friend and a great conservative earlier today about the CACR-12 vote coming up tomorrow. It responded to my earlier post in GraniteGrok about why CACR-12 must be killed this year.
“Tim: I am not sure I understand your reasoning. The Claremont decision shifted power from the legislature (the people) to the supreme court to decide policy. I believe that was wrong. The change coming up for the voters to remove the supreme court seems like a move in the right direction. I don’t understand why you oppose that. I don’t want 5 lawyers in black robes, who have shown they can be corrupted decide education policy. We might get a Terri Norelli or equivalent in the House deciding education policy and funding but isn’t that a better risk than the supreme court?”
My response: The state has never had the “responsibility” and “obligation” to fund education statewide in New Hampshire. Even moreso, it has never had any obligation whatsoever to “take from the rich and give to the poor” to “eliminate funding disparities.” This extremely harmful proposal creates and enshrines that obligation, which is exactly what the supreme court socialists have wanted all along. —Tim
Back at me: “Is it not already enshrined by the Claremont decisions? Should that not be unwound by putting it in the legislature. I understand your concern but this CCR seems the lesser of two evils. Is the perfect the enemy of the good?”
My response in return: While it is true that “the perfect is the enemy of the good,” we must never mistake a truly bad idea as “a good alternative” to something even worse. I’m all in favor of compromising to get what we want when necessary. But this is a case of “going backward.” It’s the familiar unilateral surrender of Republicans to the forces of statism…and then they crow about what a “victory” they have won. That attitude, and those types of mistakes, are what have gotten America to the miserable state it is in now. —Tim
