Conservatives Do Not Believe In States’ Rights

The most conservative judges on the Supreme Court since the 1930s issued a decision yesterday that said police could racially profile people in Arizona.  Some of the writings and statements made yesterday were overtly political – exactly what judges should not be.  The politicization of the Supreme Court by right wing extremists has reached new heights with this group.  That was the state of affairs forecasted to occur by non-partisan experts asked to comment on President Bush’s unqualified nominees.  And that is the state of affairs that has developed.  Based on the aforementioned writings, the conservative judges defended the so-called “right” of Arizona to “defend” itself against people that those in power don’t want in the state: brown people.

Is the immigration system broken?  Yes.

Are most government systems broken?  Yes.

Why are they broken?  Because those same right-wing extremists have put policies and personnel in place to ensure the systems don’t operate as they were designed.  The more they can wreck things, the truer their complaints that government doesn’t work rings true.  It’s called fulfilling their own prediction.

But hold on one moment.  Those same so-called “pro-states’ rights” folks are equally silent on the right of Montana to enforce a 100-year old law to keep corruption out of government.  Folks used to publicly pay for legislators – including U.S. Senators – to get the policies they individually wanted implemented.  The people of Montana stood up to that kind of nonsense.  Alito, Romney, Limbaugh and all the other right-wing nuts out there didn’t say word one about Montana’s right to pass a state law in the absence of national laws and a broken election system.

There are dozens of corporate media articles proclaiming Romney’s unwavering belief that states’ rights are paramount.

Except that it isn’t.  The corporate media is part of the problem.  If they sold themselves as stenographers, dutifully copying down everything fed to them by whatever source they could dredge up, that would be one thing.  But they continue to try to pass their industry off as legitimate.  The results?  Declining participation in a democratic process.  Disapproval of all branches of government.  These conditions won’t last forever.  Movements will arise and succeed in putting the ship back on course.  The wealthy and powerful won’t like it, but that’s not the real issue.

At the end of the day, conservatives believe in states’ rights.  Except when they don’t, which is more often than when they do.

Pro-Corporate Supreme Court Allows For More Water Pollution

The early part of this century will leave a story for the future of a long series of pro-corporate rulings from the Supreme Court.  Among the decisions that will leave a negative legacy on this nation are those that restricted the EPA’s ability to keep our waters safe and clean.

Right-wing extremists started targeting the courts 30-40 years ago.  They wanted only the judges that agreed with their fringe worldview to be seated – at all levels.  As a result, the nations’ courts have moved steadily toward a solid pro-corporate stance, much as our legislators and executives have done.  Too few voters realize the extent of judges’ decisions have on their lives since they’re not required to face the people to continue on the bench.  Lifetime appointees can rule on issues that affect millions for decades.  The Bush regime was, perhaps, the group that realized this most accurately.  Note their nomination of Alito and Roberts; both were very young, very ideologically rigid men.  No matter who else is nominated to the Supreme Court, the Court will be heavily influenced by these two for three or more decades to come.

Early Thoughts on Sonia Sotomayor

Before this chance passes me by, I wanted to put down my early thoughts on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the judge President Obama has nominated to replace Justice Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.  At this point, I’m not thrilled with the choice.  Now, that’s not to say I don’t like her as the nominee.  What I am concerned about is her track record.  I don’t care too much that she is a woman, nor that she is a Hispanic.  I do believe the Supreme Court could use a little more diversity, as long as it’s not diversity for diversity’s sake.

Back to her track record: what little I’ve seen so far doesn’t encourage me.  I’m unsure whether she’ll stand up for actual people.  In contrast, I knew quickly after their nominations that Samuel Alito and John Roberts definitely would not stand up for actual people.  They had track records establishing that mindset.  What I’ve read about Sotomayor indicates at best a mixed message.  Will she be as strong an advocate for American citizens as Alito and Roberts are for corporations and the elite?  If not, that’s not change; that’s not progress, both of which this country is in desperate need.

Indeed, reading this article raises plenty of questions I’d like answered.  This paragraph in particular caught my attention:

Yet Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale.

That’s not the story President Obama wanted highlighted, which means his introduction of Sotomayor comes across as disingenuous.  If she rose up out of the projects into a middle-class neighborhood and attended a private school, say so.  Let the American people ascertain the true Sotomayor, not the version the White House wants spun.

Judge Sotomayor has a track record of voting with conservative judges in District Court, not liberal judges.  That’s worrisome to me.  President Obama was elected by the largest margin in 20 years.  Democrats control the House and Senate by a large margin.  If liberals can’t get a proud, strong liberal nominated to the Supreme Court at this point in time, it won’t happen for the next couple generations.

The corporate media did a very poor job of accurately describing Bush’s nominees’ character and voting tendencies.  They are the most radical judges nominated in years.  They aren’t strict constitutionalists – they vote to overturn law more than the other Supreme Court judges.  What happened was the extremist right-wing set the frame for Democrats to have a hard time getting the truth out about ultra-conservatives nominated to the bench.  By claiming liberal judges were the activists, supposedly “legislating from the bench”, they prevented the same kind of criticism from being leveled at their nominees, even though the records clearly show which judges are activists and which aren’t.  Bush forced the Supreme Court so far to the right that President Obama should have nearly been forced to nominate someone to try to balance the tilt back toward the center.  By nominating Sotomayor using language like “moderate”, the balance will not likely shift back.  Replacing Justice Souter with someone who is more conservative than he is pushes the Court that much further out of balance.

I sincererly hope my initial read on Judge Sotomayor is incorrect.  I hope she stands up for Americans’ rights and works to limit corporations’ rights.  I hope she will prove to be a strong counterbalance to the extremists Bush appointed.  Some of this might come out in confirmation hearings this summer.  It will unfortunately take many decisions on the Court before a clear picture emerges.  I hope it won’t be too late once that happens.

Random Hits 7/1/08

The year is about halfway over. Just over four months from now, we’ll know who the next President of the U.S. will be. We’ll also know how large the Democratic majority of the House and Senate will be. Of course, we’ll also have to see how bad the economy is performing and how much of an effect climate change continues to exhibit, among other issues.

****

The Progressive States’ Network released a write-up that backs up my thoughts on the recent Supreme Court decisions:

In almost every Supreme Court decision decided this term, state regulation lost out against business claims of federal preemption of state powers.

This puts to bed another commonly stated conservative ideological pillar: states’ rights are important. Not according to the conservatives on the Supreme Court which were put there by a conservative President and a conservative Congress, elected by voters who for whatever reason thought they should put conservatives in office. Too many voters for too many elections have been misled by Republican candidates’ sweet sounding talking points. When the reality hits home that their ballot choices don’t mesh with their policy desires, the Republican party will be even further weakened.

An earlier decision is revisited:

If the Court was eager to override state laws for the benefit of corporate interests, it bent over backwards in deference to state law when the issue was Indiana’s photo ID law gutting the rights of our nation’s poorest voters [...].

Pro-corporatocracy and anti-person. Two views that unfortunately go hand in hand with these revisionists.

A mixed term on criminal justice issues is also present. I encourage taking a look at this dispatch. It’s written in an easy to read summary format with plenty of links to additional resources if you’re looking for them.

*****

U.S. auto makers are suffering from a confluence of issues: the ridiculous price of gas, betting the farm on gas guzzlers, and an American public that is used to switching its buying habits on a dime. Instead of SUVs and trucks, consumers are anything but by not purchasing crappy car alternatives. I guess the decades and millions of dollars spent on lobbying Congress to maintain low CAFE standards isn’t working out quite how the executives thought they would. Meanwhile, workers have suffered by losing jobs by the thousands as executives ran laughing to the bank with the money they saved on wages.

*****

About a month ago, I wrote about the costs of doing something meaningful about climate change in “Climate Change Costs Discussion“. The point to that was showing that if 1.1% of GDP were invested to address the changing climate, economies wouldn’t even come close to collapsing. In fact, that money would likely be returned many times over in new jobs and expanding economies.

So that’s one side of the coin. Now, there’s also numbers to talk about for the other side of the coin: the potential costs of inaction. The U.K.’s Stern Review found that:

…if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five percent of global [gross domestic product (GDP)] each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to twenty percent of GDP or more.

This is part of the crisis that deniers and delayers are saddling the globes’ current and future occupants with: out of control costs that will devastate economies. Actually, the American consumer has faced slightly similar cost increases in the past 10 years with rising health care, energy and food costs. Combine those with stagnant wages during the same time frame and Americans are in a tight place. Can you imagine if 5-20% of your income were required to be spent elsewhere? What choices would you have to make?

What choices will we all have to make if we don’t act now? Acting now is possible. The key is helping our elected policy makers recognize that fact. The inaction costs link above demonstrates that California understand the scope of the problem. When will the rest of the country?

*****

If you didn’t pay taxes on your property for four years, and received notices about that fact during those four years, do you think you would still be in your house? Absolutely not! Well, regular guy John McCain and his heiress wife face just that situation – and they still own the property. Despite having a $100 million fortune and owning seven properties, they haven’t paid taxes on their La Jolla, CA property ($8,486.42!!!) and that property hasn’t been sold by the County. And McCain has the audacity to call Obama an elitist?!

Recent Supreme Court Decisions

With regard to the Exxon Valdez spill – the Court greatly reduced a pre-determined penalty from $2.5 billion to $507.5 million. The spill, remember, happened in 1989. 20 years later, litigation continues. A couple of things here. Last year, Exxon made $2.5 billion in less than 2 days of business. Meanwhile, 32,000 fishermen, Alaska natives, property owners and others (including uncountable wildlife populations) had their lives irrevocably changed the day a drunk captain ran his ship full of crude aground. Further, I don’t think the Court should have heard the case. What’s unconstitutional about awarded damages? Lower courts have the capability and jurisdiction to decide these matters.

I’ll raise a related question: do you think it’s important now how much gas and oil cost? Do you think it’s important how much one corporation profits every year? Thousands of lives were ruined and Exxon took this case all the way to the Supreme Court. How much do you think doing so affected their bottom line? Whatever they pay will be pennies on the dollars they continue to make off our backs every day.

Which brings up another important point: this Court is really solidifying itself as being pro-corporatist. Does it matter now what kind of person gets put into the White House, whether by the Supreme Court or by the electoral college? You’re damn right it does. Had Gore or Kerry won, you can bet the kind of Justices nominated by Bush wouldn’t have been considered. These Justices, and many more on lower courts across the country, get to sit on the bench for their lifetime. They’ll be issuing decisions like these for the next 20-30 years. Welcome to the Corporate State of America.