Up is down-Republican leaders call for judicial restraint from Obama Supreme Court nominee

It’s official. Justice Stevens announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court effective the end of this term. Court watchers have been speculating for a while that this would happen.

Here is one of many news reports. I’m taken by this quote from the linked MSNBC report by Senator Mitch McConnell (R Ky):

“Americans can expect Senate Republicans to make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an evenhanded reading of the law.”

This is great news, as the Senate Republicans are now ready to reign in the activist Roberts Court. This is the activist Court that brought us Citizens United.  And that’s only the most recent overreach.  Senator McConnell’s talking-point quote seems oddly ironic, given that he supported Justices Alito and Roberts and the rest of the activist wing of the Court. But then I suppose one could pointedly say that it’s all about whose ox is getting gored.

Here are a few thin suggestions from a simple consumer attorney toiling in the hinterland:

1. How about we jettison the labels? The reality is that Justice Stevens was hardly liberal by comparison to many of his predecessors. Labeling him as a leader of the “liberal wing” of the Court is media hype and talking-point noise. There is no liberal wing to the Court. And those who claim to be the conservative wing are pretenders. I can imagine Justices Frankfurter and Harlan turning over in their graves.

2. Let’s not forget history: Justice Stevens is one of many Supreme Court justices who proved to be different than presumed. Justice Stevens voted differently than expected on major issues.  Same was true of Justice Brennan.

3.  I suppose the posturing is inevitable. Still, is it too much to ask that you deal truthfully? If Sen. McConnell truly supports judicial restraint, where was he during the Roberts confirmation hearing? Meantime, maybe he can take steps to make it up to us by truly working for a non-activist majority on the Court.

Add U.S. Chamber of Commerce to losers list on health care reform

Good post here at the PopTort, about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s latest legislative loss. This time it’s health care reform. But as the PopTort article goes on to note that loss is the latest in a string of losses for the U.S. Chamber, which also opposed financial regulation, EPA action on greenhouse gases, and Sen. Franken’s efforts to limit defense contractors’ use of mandatory arbitration clauses.

On my prior blog, I’ve noted the problems with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They supported Bush-Cheney policies that led us to financial crisis. The U.S. Chamber rails against lawsuits and verdicts for consumers. But when a big business obtains a $300 million verdict, they remain silent.

I imagine the talking heads will be sorting winners and losers over last night’s historic health care reform vote. Let’s be sure to add the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the health care reform losers. To be fair, they are not alone.

At our house over the weekend, my teenage daughter asked whether health care reform was a good idea.  Her mom and I talked it through slowly, pointing out that over 30 million Americans who previously lacked insurance would have access to health care. We also explained the the dread and indefensible pre-existing condition snafu that would bar all four members of her immediate family from care in the current environment.  But we were quick to say that there were a lot of unanswered questions about the bill.

My own take is that the bill did not go far enough. I don’t think that access to medical care should be a luxury, and as a small business owner, I have serious doubts about the wisdom of continuing to tie health care to employment. Still, a step forward is better than none.

I was struck by the tenor of the opponents. They would not negotiate. They hurled horrifying epithets. They wanted to make it all or nothing, and now–having lost–they complain bitterly about the process. By choosing a loud and nasty campaign, they galvanized the middle against them. I’m not much of a legislative geek, but from my perspective, the anger and distortions helped drive the ambivalent to support the bill.

As the debate unfolded over the weekend, I followed with keen interest the comments on Twitter.  (Yes, I’m on Twitter–@DavidSug.) Lots of trash talk about Speaker Pelosi and President Obama.  Seemed like it was pretty simple. They did what none of our prior leaders could do. I’m impressed by their political skills and dedication in getting it done.

So as to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I can’t help but wonder how that high spendin’, loud talkin’ worked out for you.  Feel free to let me know.

Oh Yes he did: President Obama calls out Supreme Court

Much is being written about President Obama’s first State of the Union address. I didn’t hear the whole thing, but thanks to the miracle of the interwebs, video clips are up. One has already caught my eye.

First some background. Here is an overview of the Court’s stunningly activist decision in Citizens United, which struck down key components of campaign finance reform. As a result of the decision, corporations may directly give to campaigns from their treasuries because corporations have expansive First Amendment rights. It’s a bizarre ruling that attributes to fictional entities rights that were never intended.  The holding of Citizens United appears to give all corporations these overbroad First Amendment rights, even those controlled by foreign interests that might be hostile to our national interests.

So in the State of the Union, President Obama questioned the Court’s Citizens United ruling. Here is what he said:

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

This video clip gives a much better feel than the text.  The video cuts to the Court members sitting somberly as members of Congress give a standing ovation. Better, it shows Justice Alito shaking his head and quietly mouthing what looks like, “It’s not true.” To Justice Alito’s credit, he’s no Joe Wilson, as he didn’t shout or interrupt.

So what are we to make of this? Keep in mind that Obama was a law professor before he entered politics. He showed as much with his reference to separation of powers that acknowledges the fundamental constitutional roles of the three branches.  Take note, as well, that the State of the Union is a power and prerogative of the President. U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 3.

While I’m no pundit or close watcher of presidential pageantry, it seemed remarkable to me that he was using the State of the Union to call out the Court.  The words may look light and bland, but insitutionally, this is closer to the old Saturday Night Live Point-Counterpoint routine with Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin:

Nice to see that the President calling the Court out on this. It’s a dreadful decision by an activist majority hell bent on allowing corporations to run amok.

David Sugerman