“Correcting The Record Of Strategic Disinformation”: We Have The Most Conservative Supreme Court In Decades
In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has turned corporate treasuries into campaign slush funds for CEOs, demolished campaign finance laws, aided and abetted pay discrimination, made it much harder for consumers and workers to file class action lawsuits against corporations that have cheated them, and kindly delivered the White House to one lucky Republican from Texas.
Study after study has found that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts and his predecessor William Rehnquist has swerved hard to the right, systematically favoring corporate interests over workers, consumers and voters — to a shocking extent.
So why does a plurality of Americans still think that the Supreme Court leans to the left?
A new poll from Public Policy Polling finds that 36 percent of Americans believe the Supreme Court is “too liberal,” compared with just 30 percent who find it “too conservative” and 29 percent who think it’s ideologically “about right.” The poll highlights a problem that has long plagued progressives who care about the courts: while the Supreme Court and lower federal courts continue to drive to the right, many Americans, strangely, have come to believe that the courts tilt to the left.
This misperception of the federal judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, is no fluke. It is the residue of more than a half-century of propaganda by the right labeling the Supreme Court a bastion of runaway liberal judicial activists who supersede the will of the people to impose their own views on innocent Americans. This campaign began with “massive resistance” to landmark civil rights and civil liberties decisions of the Warren Court, most notably Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which desegregated the schools and prompted an “impeach Earl Warren” movement; Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down compulsory prayer in the schools and was blamed for the moral downfall of America; and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which gave people basic rights in encounters with the police and was decried as “pro-criminal.” The campaign against the Court intensified with the response to Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized the reproductive rights of women as a matter of constitutional privacy but has been depicted ever since by the right as the epitome of illegitimate judicial activism.
The movement to turn the clock back on civil rights and civil liberties in the courts has continued for decades and been bolstered by the Chamber of Commerce and big business, which want to see the federal judiciary enshrine new constitutional rights for corporations while dismantling public regulation.
In recent decades, right-wing leaders have worked in popular culture to attack the courts as a liberal peril while successfully organizing to dominate and control legal institutions to create courts that no longer look out for the rights of all Americans. They have set up law schools and legal societies to promote corporate and right-wing commitments, have promoted the appointment of reactionary judges and Justices, blocked the appointment of even moderate jurists, and defined a legal agenda that subordinates individual rights to government power and public regulation to corporate power. Right-wing success in remaking the judiciary in the image of the Republican Party has not led conservatives to curb their bitter attack on “liberal judicial activism,” a fantasy that is several decades out of date but indispensable to this smoke-and-mirrors operation.
Without mass education by progressives to reclaim the public narrative about the courts, popular illusions about the nature of our right-wing judiciary will persist. A perfect example of public confusion is the reaction to the Supreme Court’s narrow decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice Roberts’ decisive vote to uphold the law was hailed on the left and seen as a stunning betrayal on the right. But what got little attention was how conservative the logic of the decision to uphold the ACA really was. While the final outcome was good news for progressives, Roberts’ opinion laid the groundwork for severely restricting the ability of the federal government to solve national problems under the Commerce Clause — harkening back to the gilded-age Lochner Era, when the Supreme Court routinely struck down regulatory protections for ordinary Americans.
The left needs to wake up. PPP found that less than half of Democrats recognized the conservative leaning of the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decisions on marriage equality, voting rights and affirmative action come down this spring we may have some reasons to celebrate and others to mourn. But we will doubtless be reminded again that Supreme Court decisions often have much less to do with evolving legal theory than with which president appointed the Justices. Conservatives know this and liberals need to wake up to it as well.
Four decades into conservative control of the Supreme Court (through the Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts Courts), and well into President Obama’s second term, conservatives still promote the absurd story that the Supreme Court and judiciary are “liberal.” We must do everything we can to correct the record and dispel the lingering false impressions left by decades of strategic disinformation.
By: Michael B. Keegan, The Huffington Post, May 24, 2013
“A Legacy Worthy Of Contempt”: George W Bush, Still The Guy Who Taught America To Torture
ROSS DOUTHAT isn’t a big fan of George W. Bush, but he does think a lot of the liberal critique leveled at the time seems “misguided or absurd” in retrospect. Mostly on domestic policy issues, but on foreign and security issues as well:
The continuities between Bush and Obama on civil liberties, presidential power and the war on terror make the same point: In order to critique Bushism appropriately, you need to recognize that on many, many issues, his presidency was much more centrist and establishmentarian than it was radical or right-wing.
There may be some issues on which George W. Bush was “centrist and establishmentarian”, but his stances on civil liberties and the war on terror were not among them. The only reason they may appear so now is that the Bush administration and the Republican Party succeeded in shifting the political debate so far towards militarism and unchecked security-statism in the previous decade that it now feels normal. We’ve been right so long it looks like centre to us. It is hard to tell how much personal responsibility Mr Bush bears for many of the most egregious precedent-setting violations of human rights that took place during his tenure, since he was a relatively ill-informed and often disengaged chief executive who delegated an unusual level of power in these areas to his vice-president. But we were talking about the administration, not just the man. On civil liberties, it was the Bush administration that decided that America ought to torture people and imprison them without trial indefinitely (ie, possibly forever) in extra-territorial jails. On the war on terror, it was the Bush administration that decided that America ought to launch preemptive wars against other countries in defiance of international public opinion, based on a delusional belief in the irresistible glory and rightness of American power. I would call that radical and right-wing. I can think of some meaner words, too.
On the question of “presidential power”, Mr Douthat is right that most administrations tend to want more of it rather than less. Certainly Barack Obama has not been eager to ramp back his prerogatives. In other continuities, the Obama administration has presided over the expansion of drone-based targeted killing programmes that have killed thousands of civilians across the Middle East, has expanded domestic surveillance powers, and has used the same reprehensible personality-destruction techniques on Bradley Manning that the Bush administration used on José Padilla. All of which is lousy. But how sharp a shift was really possible? The Obama administration inherited a security apparatus swollen to a multiple of its previous size, full of people who had spent the previous eight years carrying out the Bush administration’s policies. Those people had a very strong interest in defending those policies, not least because a number of them were guilty of ordering or carrying out torture. Torture is a crime against humanity. America has signed treaties that oblige it to try its own officials when they commit crimes against humanity. And yet you can feel how far the Bush administration moved politics permanently to the right when you speak the words “officials who ordered people tortured should be tried for crimes against humanity”, and realize that you sound like a ranting far-left extremist.
Maybe Barack Obama could have reversed course more sharply on civil liberties and held Bush-era officials accountable for torture, if he had been willing to stage a partisan ideological battle on those grounds that would have left him unable to accomplish much else. I’m not convinced it would have achieved anything; Mr Obama has been trying to close Guantánamo since the day he took office, but has failed in the face of congressional opposition. Either way, it’s absurd to believe that America would have started torturing people or invading countries unprovoked if Barack Obama, Al Gore, Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush had been in the White House on September 11th, 2001. That is George W. Bush’s historical responsibility, and it’s what he should be remembered for—along with the financial crisis, the rich-skewed tax cuts that left us with a half-trillion-dollar structural deficit, the listless cronyism that hollowed out the SEC and FEMA, a couple of positive public-health initiatives marred by corporate giveaways (PEPFAR, Medicare Part D), and the decision to doom the world to global warming by opposing the Kyoto Protocol. On balance, a legacy worthy of contempt.
By: M. S., Democracy in America, Published in The Economist, April 26, 2013
“First, Ignore John McCain And Lindsey Graham”: The Legal Process Ahead For Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
There were some preliminary reports last night that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had been read his Miranda rights, but that turns out not to have been the case — the bombing suspect is in federal custody, but for now, as Rachel explained on the show last night, he has not been made aware of his rights, with officials citing a public-safety exception.
The details of the process obviously matter. There are certainly legitimate questions right now about other possible explosive devices that may pose a threat in the city of Boston, so it stands to reason that law enforcement would seek to get immediate information before Tsarnaev is told he can remain silent. That said, Emily Bazelon also raises sensible concerns about “stretching the law” and misapplying the public-safety exception.
This element of the process, however, is temporary — the exception comes with an expiration date, and will no longer be an option for officials after about 48 hours from the time Tsarnaev was taken into custody. The broader question — I’m reluctant to call it a “debate” since the path seems so obvious — is what happens after that. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have some thoughts on the matter.
Two powerful GOP senators are calling on the Obama administration to treat the captured suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings as an “enemy combatant” and deny him counsel even though he is reportedly an American citizen. […]
Regardless his citizenship status, McCain and Graham say Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gave up his rights to a criminal trial when he allegedly participated in the bombings.
“Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel,” McCain and Graham said.
McCain and Graham are playing a dangerous game here. In case anyone’s forgotten, we’re talking about an American citizen, captured on American soil, accused of committing a crime in America. These Republican senators are arguing, in effect, that none of this matters anymore.
The same week in which Senate Republicans insisted that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, McCain and Graham are arguing that the Fourth Amendment is a nicety that the nation must no longer take seriously.
By all accounts, the Obama administration is prepared to ignore the senators’ suggestion.
Even if authorities determine that the Tsarnaevs received support from an overseas terrorist organization, the Obama administration official said the government will not seek to declare him an enemy combatant and try him before a military commission, as it has done with senior al Qaeda officials captured overseas and imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Administration officials see that scenario as a non-starter, the official said, particularly given the fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen, naturalized last September.
That’s encouraging. Even for those on the right who are indifferent to civil liberties, the fact remains that civilian trials for terrorist suspects have proven to be an effective method of trying, convicting, and sentencing criminals, including accused terrorists. Military commissions, meanwhile, have proven to be an ineffective method.
When it comes to national security, foreign policy, and counter-terrorism, McCain and Graham have a track record of being remarkably wrong with incredible consistency. The more the Obama administration ignores their advice, the better.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, April 20, 2013
“Sustaining Their Prejudices”: The Arizona Immigration Law Is A Constitutional Nightmare
You thought the healthcare case created a storm. Well you haven’t seen anything yet. Next week the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the constitutionality of SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law. Any case that involves race creates political fireworks.
The Arizona law is a constitutional nightmare.
One part of the law allows the police to hold people arrested indefinitely until their immigration status is verified. What it means is that American citizens who look like illegal immigrants because they have brown skin and who are suspected of a crime can be held indefinitely without trial. This part of the law violates the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment and the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. SB 1070 flushes fundamental American civil liberties down the toilet.
The Arizona law states that “the intent of the law is attrition through enforcement to deter the unlawful entry and presence of illegal aliens.” Well, you have a constitutional problem right there. Article I, Section 8 the Constitution clearly gives Congress, not the states the power “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
The state says it had to act since the feds haven’t acted. There are several problems with this argument.
The reason that the founders gave Congress the power to regulate immigration is that there would be chaos if each of the 50 states did the same thing and created their own immigration policies.
For another thing, the logic of the Arizona argument is the same thing as saying that it or any other state could declare war against another country if Congress didn’t. Article 1, Section 8 not only gives Congress the power to set rules of naturalization, it also gives it the power to declare war. And why not let the states instead of Congress have the Article I power to coin money. Of course that would lead to economic disaster. I don’t know about you but I don’t have the math skills to figure out the exchange rate for financial transactions between Maryland and Virginia.
Finally, the state’s argument that the feds are not acting is just wrong. Illegal immigration has slowed steadily in the last few years. There has been a large increase in the number of Border Patrol agents stationed on the Mexican border. And the Obama administration has deported record numbers of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes. But supporters of SB 1070 just want to overlook the facts so they can sustain their prejudices.
George W. Bush and Barack Obama proposed a solution to the problem that doesn’t even violate the Constitution. These presidential proposals would intensify enforcement of immigration efforts at the Mexican border, penalize employers who hire undocumented workers, and create a path to citizenship for people in the U.S illegally. Congress failed to act on either of the proposed laws. Even though the two presidential proposals are similar, several GOP senators who supported the Bush proposal now oppose the Obama bill. Go figure.
After the court issues rules on the Arizona law in June, the justices should disperse as quickly as possible because whatever they do, there will be a lot of very unhappy people out there.
By: Brad Bannon, Washington Whispers, U. s. News and World Report, April 19, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 