Citizens United Case

The Wisconsin Disaster And What It May Portend

Ronald 2 Comments

The failure last Tuesday to remove Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker from office by recall is a major blow to the labor movement and to progressivism.

It is a warning sign that workers, whether union or non union, whether public service workers or those employed by private employers, can expect that many of the hard won reforms of the 20th century could be taken away by Republican Governors, a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican President in the future.

It is a sign also of the power of wealthy corporate interests to destroy our political system, with the assistance of the right wing Supreme Court which allowed the Citizens United decision in 2010, which has now led to the right wing takeover in many states, in the House of Representatives, and was able to help Scott Walker survive, despite the abuse of power by him and his Republican colleagues in the state legislature. The ability of wealthy individuals to contribute large amounts of money without limit distorted the whole political process!

The fact that Mitt Romney was able to raise more money last month than Barack Obama for the first time is another danger sign that everything progressives and liberals have fought for could be going down the drain!

It is hard not to be very pessimistic about the short term and long term future, but those who believe in the rights of workers, women, minorities, children, the elderly, and wish to promote education, health care and the environment, cannot sit back and mope over the results!

If the forces for democracy decide to give up, instead of mobilizing for the upcoming campaign, and if they do not convince citizens how important it is to vote for their own futures, then indeed the country will be moving closer to a form of corporate fascism that will destroy the great progress made over a long period of generations of hard fought struggles!

Gloomy Future For Bi Partisanship In Congress

Ronald Leave a comment

The best Congresses of the past were those that promoted bi partisan reforms and change, but that has become a casualty of recent times, and there is no sign that it will be returning anytime soon.

With the Citizens United Case of the Supreme Court two years ago encouraging SuperPacs that award those on the extreme left and extreme right with unlimited campaign funds, any mainstream moderate is likely to decide to quit Congress (as for instance Olympia Snowe and Ben Nelson), or to face a challenge for re-election as not extreme enough (as for instance Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar).

The latest possible casualty is Senator Lugar of Indiana, a mainstream conservative, but not extreme enough for Tea Party types. Lugar has served longer than any sitting Senator, and is now 80, and there is an argument that it is time to retire, but Lugar, with his expertise and wisdom on foreign policy, could be argued to be a national treasure who should stay on in the Senate for another term.

Lugar’s experience and knowledge would be valued in any other profession, no matter what his age, and yet the argument is that it is time for a change. It will, of course, be up to Indiana Republicans next week as to whether Lugar stays on, with Lugar having the endorsement of Governor Mitch Daniels and Arizona Senator John McCain.

The irony for the Republicans is that if they defeat Lugar, the likelihood of a Democrat winning the Senate seat vastly improves, so in many respects, they are committing suicide if they defeat a man regarded as one of the very best they have had in office in the past four decades.

But then, statesmanship is not in vogue these days, sadly!

Seven Factors Which Could Defeat Barack Obama In 2012

Ronald 1 Comment

Despite all of the evidence that Barack Obama has a great advantage for re-election in 2012, there certainly are factors which could lead to his defeat.

These include:

If the economy has another backslide of notable proportions, and gasoline prices continue to rise.

If a war breaks out in the Middle East or elsewhere, and the President is seen as handling the foreign crisis poorly.

If the Republican attempt in many states to limit the vote by discriminatory voter registration legislation succeeds in cutting voter registration and participation down dramatically.

If the enthusiasm of voters for Barack Obama is toned down, because of disillusionment that he has not been able to solve all of the problems he faced upon taking office.

If the effects of the growth of SuperPACS, encouraged by the Citizens United Case of the Supreme Court in 2010, are able to propagandize enough with less informed voters who react to negative commercials.

If a major political scandal erupts that undermines faith in the President’s leadership, with the opposition already starting to blame Obama for the Secret Service scandal.

And finally, the issue of race, as electing the first African American President is a path breaker and milestone, but re-electing would be an even more path breaking milestone, with the constant reference to race by right wing extremists, conservatives, and a majority of Republican officeholders, all designed to instill fear, panic, and conspiracy theories into the heads of white working class voters in Pennsylvania and the Midwest.

So there is no guarantee, and six months is an eternity in American politics!

Is It The Kennedy Court, Rather Than The Roberts Court?

Ronald 1 Comment

The more one analyzes the US Supreme Court in recent years, it is more clear than ever that we should call it the Anthony Kennedy Court, rather than the John Roberts Court!

Kennedy, appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1988 as a compromise choice who could pass Senate muster, after the well publicized rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, has now been on the Court for 24 years, and is seen more than ever as the “swing vote” on the Court, first sharing that with former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, until her retirement in 2005, but now all by himself as the most significant vote on the Court.

Kennedy, basically a conservative but with an open mind, has leaned to the Right two thirds of the time, and to the Left one third of the time on the average.

It is seen by just about all Court watchers that Kennedy’s vote on the Obama Health Care legislation is crucial, as to whether it survives or goes down.

Kennedy disappointed many on the left in being in the majority on the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, the Citizens United case of 2010, and the Strip Search case of this past Monday. But at the same time, he upheld the rights of gays to privacy in the Lawrence V. Texas case of 2003, enraging fellow Justice Antonin Scalia.

His questioning about the Obama Health Care law last week showed the quandary he is in, and he is getting pressure from many sources to uphold the law, but the belief is that he will not give in to pressure, and might even be tempted to go with the other conservative Justices in overturning the law.

The theory is that IF Kennedy goes with upholding the law, that Chief Justice John Roberts will join him, making it a 6-3 vote, but that if he decides to negate the law, then the vote will be a partisan 5-4 vote against the legislation.

So to call the present Court the Kennedy Court seems very appropriate!

The Need For Supreme Court Reform By Constitutional Amendment

Ronald 1 Comment

THe controversy over the US Supreme Court has grown in recent years, with the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, where the Court, by partisan majority, chose a President; and the Citizens United case of 2010, which also, by partisan majority, the Court claimed that corporations and labor unions had the same right to freedom of speech in politics as did ordinary citizens, and has led to the Super PACs that are now distorting campaign finance in the Presidential Election of 2012.

That, along with the concern that the Court might strike down the Obama Health Care legislation by another 5-4 partisan majority, and the Strip Search decision of the Court this past Monday, also by partisan majority, makes many wonder if there is not a need for Supreme Court reform.

This is nothing new, as a century ago, during their Progressive Party campaigns for President of former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette, Sr. in 1924, as well as proposals of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, suggestions for changes, including constitutional amendment changes by TR and La Follette. were advocated.

Of course, the constitutional amendment route is a very difficult one, and it could be a long road to necessary change, but even if not imminent, the changes that this blogger proposes are worthy of consideration, if not adoption.

These proposed changes would include the following:

A term on the Supreme Court should not be lifetime, but instead 15 years maximum, which in most cases, would mean the Justice would be over 70 at the end of the term.

No one should serve on the Supreme Court past the age of 80, with only a handful who have so served, including outstanding men, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Paul Stevens. Losing such luminaries at age 80 is a shame, but no one can be considered as irreplaceable, as the President and the Pope are replaceable, as well as any other position in any government!

While 5-4 decisions on normal cases would continue, any attempt to override legislation passed by Congress should require a super majority of 6-3 to have such effect. Since we have a two thirds vote for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress and go to the states for ratification; a two thirds vote to override a Presidential veto; and a two thirds vote to ratify a treaty in the US Senate, it seems reasonable that a two thirds vote should be necessary to overturn a congressional law.

What these suggested amendments do is allow turnover on the Court more regularly, and stop the image of the Supreme Court as being out of touch with America, and as an arrogant, unelected group that can hold back progress!

Showdowns Between Presidents And The Supreme Court: Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Nixon, And Obama

Ronald Leave a comment

President Barack Obama today challenged the Supreme Court to support the Obama Health Care legislation, which was argued last week before the Court in an unprecedented three day, six hour presentation by the two sides in the case.

Obama made clear that two conservative Circuit Court judges, Laurence Silberman and Jeffrey Sutton, have backed the legislation as constitutional.

Just by simply answering a question from a journalist, what Obama has done is thrown down the gauntlet to the Court, as he did when he criticized them face to face at the State of the Union Address in 2010, shortly after the decision in the Citizens United case, the most unpopular decision of the Court since Bush V. Gore in 2000.

As the author listened to Obama’s challenge to the Court, it brought back the history of Presidential challenges to the Supreme Court in the past.

Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson challenged the Court’s authority, causing antagonism between both Presidents and Chief Justice John Marshall.

Abraham Lincoln was critical of the Dred Scott Decision before his Presidency, and was in conflict with Chief Justice Roger Taney during the Civil War, until Taney’s death in 1864.

Franklin D. Roosevelt denounced the Supreme Court over challenges to the New Deal programs, and tried to “pack” the Court, and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defended the Court from the attacks of the President.

Richard Nixon denounced the Court as too liberal and permissive under Chief Justice Earl Warren, when Nixon ran for President, with Warren swearing him in as President, and then retiring later in 1969. Nixon then had the opportunity to make four Supreme Court appointments and turn the Court more conservative.

And now, Barack Obama has challenged the Court for the second time, with Chief Justice John Roberts expressing discontent, after the fact, to the first criticism of the Court, expressed during the State of the Union Address.

Wondering what the ultimate relationship between Obama, and the Chief Justice and the entire Court in the future, will be, is one of the key events of this election year!

Certainly, Obama is in good company, distinguished company, with the other Presidents who have challenged the Supreme Court!

Chief Justice John Roberts: What He Wants As His Long Term Legacy

Ronald Leave a comment

There is much speculation about the US Supreme Court and the most important case in a decade–the Affordable Care Act, known by its critics as “ObamaCare”.

Many think Anthony Kennedy is the key vote, but actually, the author would say that Chief Justice John Roberts is the REAL key vote, and there is much speculation that he will join the liberals and Kennedy, the usual swing vote, and might even convince Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito to join as well, on the power of his personality and the respect he engenders on the Court over the past seven years.

Chief Justice Roberts is going to have long career on the Court, and he wants his legacy to be positive, and IF the Court rules against “ObamaCare”, his reputation will be in tatters, and will be irretrievable.

Roberts is considered one of the brightest members of the Court, and although a conservative, he is not extreme as Clarence Thomas, for instance, is.

Roberts wishes to unite and move forward, and has been stung by the horrible reaction to the Citizens United case of 2010, and to the remnants of the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, the damage done to the reputation of the Court BEFORE he arrived as Chief Justice in 2005.

His questioning showed a mind conflicted, but to believe that he will negate the whole law is hard to imagine, as he set aside three days and six hours for this case, highly unusual, and that is, to many observers, a sign that he recognizes how crucial this issue is in itself, and the seriousness with which he takes it..

While no one can read the mind of anyone, expect Roberts to write the opinion and be in the majority, which is likely 6-3, but could be 7-2 or 8-1.

This case will shape the long term future of the Court, and if the law is overturned, the likely result will be, over time, a single payer system, which any conservative would not want.

And remember it was conservatives who led the charge in the time of Bill Clinton for what is now “RomneyCare” in Massachusetts, and “ObamaCare” in America!

The Supreme Court On Trial IF It Destroys Health Care Reform: Creation Of A Constitutional Crisis

Ronald Leave a comment

The US Supreme Court is in the midst of a crisis of massive proportions, if it destroys the Obama Health Care reform in June.

It will create a crisis in health care for about 50 million Americans, and affect young adults, senior citizens, and people with pre-existing conditions in a massively negative way.

It will undermine the major effort of the Obama Administration to bring health care into the 21st century, and on the same level as every other democratic nation in the world, many of whom have had national health care for all for decades.

It will also put the Supreme Court as an institution on trial, as it is already perceived as overly partisan, with many of the decisions decided on party line vote, based on which party’s President chose the members of the Court.

It will also make it even more obvious that the election will have the effect of deciding the future direction of the Court, based on which party gains the Presidency and has control of the US Senate. This has always been true, and has been mentioned by this author numerous times on this blog.

This Court could undermine public faith and respect for the institution itself, doing even more damage than the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, and the Citizens United case of 2010.

The Court has been a hot political issue in the past in election years, including:

1800-Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams, with the power of the Court a key issue, and Adams’ last minute appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall leading, despite opposition of Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson, to a very powerful Supreme Court shaped by Marshall.

1860–The election of Abraham Lincoln, who attacked the Dred Scott decision that stated that a slave owner could take his slave anywhere in the United States, and helping to lead to the secession of the South, and the coming of the Civil War.

1876–An election where the popular vote loser, Rutherford B. Hayes, was chosen by a committee which included five Supreme Court Justices, when no one was able to win the contested electoral votes of three Southern states–Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida.

1912 and 1924–Third party (Progressive Party) candidates Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette, Sr., respectively, proposed limitations on the powers of the Supreme Court .

1936–Franklin D. Roosevelt made the Court an issue because of its constant declaration of New Deal laws as unconstitutional, and tried to “pack” the Court by a proposal to add six new Justices for each one on the Court over the age of 70, an idea soundly defeated in 1937.

1968–Richard Nixon campaigned against the “liberal” Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who then had to swear him as President in January 1969, but retired shortly after.

2000–The Supreme Court on a partisan vote stopped the vote count in the state of Florida, thereby awarding George W. Bush the Presidency over Al Gore, with a margin of victory in Florida of 537 votes statewide.

2012 could be another such case of a President confronting a defiant Supreme Court to the will of the majority in Congress and the American people!

Trying To Fathom The Supreme Court On Health Care: The Court Under The Microscope

Ronald Leave a comment

Yesterday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court led many observers to think that the Court is about to declare the Obama Health Care law unconstitutional this coming June.

Not so fast, ladies and gentlemen! This is hysteria and panic before the fact, with plenty of opportunity after the Court decision, if it is, indeed, negative!

Emphasis was put on Justice Antonin Scalia’s sarcastic comments about mandating broccoli, a totally ridiculous statement! But one must remember that Scalia is a showboat, a maniacal egotist who loves to hear the sound of his own voice, and get everyone’s attention, and one must remember that the Court was issuing an audio of the oral arguments immediately after the event, a very rare circumstance, and that had to be on Scalia’s mind!

Scalia was thought to be a possible vote, but if it is not, so what, as Scalia is, arguably, a hypocrite who is constantly contradictory, utilizing a broad interpretation of the Constitution, when he wishes to, and other times, pontificating on “originalism”, the idea that we must literally follow the Founding Fathers as they saw things in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention.

More importantly, the view of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts will be the crucial votes, and although Kennedy and Roberts both expressed some reservations about the Obama Health Care bill and the mandate contained within it, there were also key comments by both that indicated a mind open to consideration of the constitutionality of the law.

Kennedy is usually the swing vote, and seemed conflicted, which can be seen as a good sign, and Roberts seemed very evenhanded, and is known to want to be in the majority, and probably write this most important decision of the past decade, and aware that the Supreme Court does not look very good in the eyes of many people based on recent cases, particularly the Citizens United Case of 2010, on top of the Bush V. Gore case of 2000.

The argument is that if Kennedy goes to the majority, then Roberts will join, and the vote would be 6-3.

And one must point out that the four defenders of the legislation were excellent in their arguments supporting the legislation, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a true intellectual, particularly outstanding in his arguments, but joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

So, with one more day of oral arguments, it is not time to give up on support of the legislation, and also realize that one cannot always judge how members of the Court will vote, based on oral argument alone, as often, what is being done is to test both sides in the case, and sometimes, purposely mislead on intentions, in the process of asking the lawyers in the case to defend their side.

This decision is far from certain, but progressives should feel optimistic about it at this point, and simply wait patiently to see the result, knowing that the cause is just and compassionate, and that those of us who support it are on the right side of history with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society!

75th Anniversary Of Supreme Court “Packing” Plan Of FDR: Its Significance Today

Ronald 1 Comment

Seventy five years ago on this day, President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced his plan to reorganize the Supreme Court, becoming known as an attempt to “pack” the Court, which became a turning point in many ways, including the fact that it was repudiated by the Senate in July 1937; weakened the power and clout of FDR shortly after his landslide victory in 1936; and led rapidly to a transformation of the Court, and FDR replacing, over the next five years, all but two members of the Court he was challenging.

The Supreme Court had stood in the way of change and progress during the Great Depression, declaring many New Deal laws unconstitutional, and FDR brought the Justices under attack as a result. Bitterly criticized as acting dictatorial, FDR was put on the defensive, but the long range was the Court adapting to an expansive view of the Constitution within a short time, and leading to a Court which dealt with the expansion of federal power and greater support of civil liberties and civil rights.

Today, three quarters of a century later, the Republican dominated Supreme Court has opened up the gates of campaign spending abuse in election campaigns, by its Citizens United decision of 2010. Additionally, crucial cases, including the Obama Health Care Plan, are to be decided by June, which will determine the fate of much of what Barack Obama has done and wishes to do as part of his agenda as President. Obama already made clear his criticism of the direction of the Court two years ago, with the Justices sitting there at the State of the Union Address. And three of the nine Justices–Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito–have boycotted the past two State of the Union Addresses, and represent the major challenge to the Obama Presidency, more than any other members of the Court.

No one is saying or predicting that Obama will attempt such a bold act as FDR did, and were he to do so, it would certainly cause the biggest controversy and split possible to imagine, greater than any issue so far in his administration.

But the Supreme Court IS an issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign, as the likelihood of replacements on the Court in the next term are very likely. This is particularly the case with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who has had bouts with cancer, and would pass 80 years of age at the beginning of the next term. Her liberal vote would be lost if the Republicans win the White House and she leaves the Court. Additionally, based on aging, it is possible to imagine that Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Stephen Breyer could leave the Court before 2017.

So who is elected President, and who controls the majority of the US Senate, which would need to confirm a Court appointment, is very significant, although not much attention is being paid to this issue because of the troubles with the economy.