Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
December 7, 2016 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

‘The Field of Fight’

Truthdig Bazaar
Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky

Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky

Nicholas von Hoffman

more items

Email this item Print this item

The Right Court Fight

Posted on Apr 26, 2010

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

The genius of American conservatives over the last 30 years has been their understanding that the most effective way to change the country is to change the terms of our political debate. On issue after issue, they have done just that.

Sensible regulation was cast as a dangerous quest for government control. Modest measures to alleviate poverty became schemes to lock the poor into “dependency.” Advocates of social insurance were condemned as socialists. Government was said to be under the sway of a distant “them,” even though in a democracy, government is the realm of “us.” And attempts to achieve a bit more economic equality were pronounced as assaults on liberty.

Nowhere has the conservative intellectual offensive been more effective than in transforming our discussion of the judiciary, and that is why the coming clash over President Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee is so important.

The test of success for liberals should not simply be winning the confirmation battle. This fight must be the beginning of a long-term effort to expose how radically conservatives have altered our understanding of what the Supreme Court does and how it does it.

Above all, it should become clear that the danger of judicial activism now comes from the right, not the left. It is conservatives, not liberals, who are using the courts to overturn the decisions made by democratically elected bodies in areas ranging from pay discrimination and school integration to antitrust laws and worker safety regulation.


Square, Site wide

If anyone doubted that the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority wants to impose its own view no matter what Congress or state legislatures decide—or what earlier precedents held—its decision in the Citizens United case should end all qualms.

In granting corporations an essentially unlimited right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, that ruling defied decades of legal precedents and congressional enactments. The non-elected branch of government decided it didn’t like existing legislation, so it legislated on its own.

Justice John Paul Stevens, whose retirement will open up a seat on the court, offered one of the finest dissents of a distinguished career when he noted that to arrive at the result it did, the court majority not only violated precedent, but also had to reach beyond the case at hand to do so.

“Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law,” Stevens wrote. Now that is judicial activism.

Stevens added: “In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules.”

Citizens United is an extreme case of a general tendency: Conservative judges are regularly invoking their alleged fealty to the “original” intentions of the Founders as a battering ram against attempts to limit the power of large corporations. Such entities were not even in the imaginations of those who wrote the Constitution. To claim to know what the Founders would have made of Exxon Mobil or Goldman Sachs or PepsiCo is an exercise in arrogance.

What liberals forgot during the years when their side dominated the judiciary is that for much of our history, the courts have played a conservative role. But today’s conservatives have not forgotten this legacy. Their goal is to overturn the last 70 years of judicial understandings and bring us back to a time when courts voided minimum-wage laws and all manner of other economic regulations.

In his eerily relevant new book on the struggle between Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Supreme Court, “Supreme Power,” Jeff Shesol reminds us that the conservatives of that day were “imbued with a sense that they were saving civilization from Bolsheviks, collectivists and other sundry radicals.” One suspects that the current conservative court majority has a similar view of its mission.

So this time around, let’s have a new court debate that focuses on more than just where a nominee stands on Roe v. Wade. Let’s remember that the truly “elitist” judges are the ones who protect the privileges of the powerful over the right of Congress to legislate on behalf of workers, consumers and the environment. Let’s ignore the claims of conservatives that they are opposed to “legislating from the bench,” since it’s their judges who are now doing the legislating. If liberals can’t successfully challenge conservatives on first principles, they’ll never win the fights that matter.   

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)
© 2010, Washington Post Writers Group


Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Mekhong Kurt, April 28, 2010 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

It *is* richly—if bitterly—ironic that the conservatives who scream so loudly about “judicial activism,” “legislating from the bench,” and a nominee’s bringing her (or his) life’s experience to the bench shut right up when said activism, legislating, and life experience is coming from *their* end of the political spectrum.

Most people don’t even realize there are multiple ways to approach trying to interpret the Constitution, feeling, as they do, that there’s one, and only one, conceivable interpretation of that documents upwards of 5,000 words.

For instance, there are textualists who use the text to try to divine the will of the Founding Fathers, while other textualists spend a lot of time examining dictionaries of the day, other books from which they may learn how people used particular words in particular contexts with particular meanings, etc.

The two may end up with very different opinions despite having the same starting point of textualism.

As much as it saddens me to say this, way too many of my fellow Americans simply can’t be bothered not only with trying to figure out the Constitution—including whether there are several ways it might be understood—let alone try to learn a bit about the various ways judges (and legal scholars) approach the document.

President Obama will almost certainly go with a genuine moderate. Even so, he’s likely to face another nasty dogfight between him, as represented by his fellow Democrats in the Senate, and the Republicans, who have shown remarkable cohesiveness on their scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners, just-say-“no” approach since Obama ascended to the Presidency. Incidentally, I’m not inherently anti-conservative; in fact, over my decades of voting, though I’ve always voted a split ticket, I’ve favored conservative candidates, voting Republican (or sometimes conservative Democrat—what we today call “Blue Dog Democrat”—around 70-80% of the time. But under the “leadership” of Rabid radio (Limbaugh, Beck, et al)what used to be the conservative segment of the political spectrum has shifted not merely *towards* the reactionary but beyond it, well to even its right.

And that’s worrisome to anyone like myself who prefers a moderate course for the Supreme Court, a course that takes into account the differing approaches to the Constitution then when necessary, try to imagine how the Founding Fathers might have felt about something today entirely beyond their own imaginations (the Internet, television, etc., for instance).

And in so doing, acknowledge the past as well as to acknowledge the richly varied fabric of American society.

Report this

By mcthorogood, April 27, 2010 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

I believe that Floyd Abrams, the author of “Freely Speaking”, would actually support the SCOTUS in Citizens United v. FEC.  Mr Abrams, who is a vehement supporter of the 1st Amendment, is an opponent of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. In his view the correct solution would be to strip corporations of personhood, rather than to limit free speech.

Report this

By Jimnp72, April 27, 2010 at 5:14 am Link to this comment

They have too much absolute power.
with absolute power comes absolute arrogance

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook