I always enjoy reading Ruth Marcus’s colums in the Washington Post and sometimes I find myself agreeing completely with them. But I’ve got one particular beef with her August 31 column in which she critiques Rick Perry’s views on policy expressed in his 2010 book Fed Up. She says they “range from wrongheaded to terrifying,” which is not my view but which I guess is fair comment from hers. Toward the end of her column she attacks his proposal to allow Congress to overrule Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote in both chambers. Interestingly, it was the Progressives and New Dealers from 1900 to the 1930s who most actively championed the legislative overriding of court decisions—something she doesn’t have space to mention in a 720-word column. But—and this is a good example of fairness in column writing—she does find the space to be quote Perry’s own reservation about the proposal. “This ‘risks increased politicization of judicial decisions,’ Perry allows, ‘but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the court from unilaterally deciding policy.’”