Who Should The Next Supreme Court Justice Be?

Intellectuals seem to view each national horse race as important for many reasons but the one most often cited would have to be the possibility that a new president will be in a position to nominate justices to the Supreme Court.

People suffering from “two-party-itis” regularly tell deluded, independent, naifs like myself, that we simply must choose between Democrat and Republican because our single vote may well decide Roe v. Wade all over again!

Electoral college and safe states arguments aside, this discussion would almost be funny. If people could just lift themselves out of their illogical reveries and hover for a moment of quiet reflection, they might see what I see. I always relish the expression on an insistent Democrat’s face when I ask if they know how many Senators opposed Antonin Scalia’s appointment to the court? Scalia was, and is, seen widely as one of the most conservative justices we have had. Many thought that his appointment to the bench could signal the end of abortion rights as we know them.

The answer, in case you’re not aware of it, is none. Not a single Senator stepped forward to oppose Scalia’s confirmation. Not one single Democrat came out swinging or said, “Hey! That’s not a good idea!” Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. Apparently, the same Democratic Party that insists we choose our presidents based on potential court picks were (unanimously) willing to risk overturning Roe v. Wade. Almost 25 years after Scalia’s appointment, abortion rights are still intact.

This should tell us at least two things.

One, that neither corporate political party is even slightly concerned about the Supreme Court changing our abortion laws.

Two, that Supreme Court justices often seem to change (or, at least, defy expectations) after their ascension to the bench.

Given that it really doesn’t seem to matter all that much who is picked for the court, perhaps, its also not so intelligent to make our presidential picks based on our fears about the Supreme Court?

I know it’s a pretty broad brush I’m painting with so, lets get to a finer point. There’s an issue beside abortion that all the justices seem to be on the same page about which, in the end, is probably far more important to us than any other single issue … corporate power.

Did you know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has an office in D.C. which devotes much of its time to aiding Corporate America in its fight against the people of our country? It also spends a fair amount of its time vetting potential nominees to the court and lobbying for those who are most likely to support corporate interest and agenda.

Did you know that the single greatest trend on the court over the last several decades is that decisions in favor of actual human beings have become more and more infrequent every time corporate power is challenged? This tells me that the biggest concern workers and citizens should have when nominations are being made is the court’s continued subordination to corporate power. Like our government, the court seems to have become just one more hammer in the corporate toolbox. Just one more mechanism designed to represent those who need it least and to crush justice wherever profit is concerned.

There is a great piece on this very topic written by noted author and lawyer, Jeffrey Rosen, in the New York Times (March 2008). Its called “Supreme Court Inc” and every American who cares about justice and law and the little guy should give it a perusal.

President Obama has to come up with some appointees for the Chamber and the Senate to look at. I have a suggestion that seems politically expedient while also addressing the court’s demonstrably corporate bias.

One thing we all seem to be in agreement about is that Obama has made some absolutely terrible choices for his cabinet. He could now throw a bone to those of us in the working class to ensure that textbooks mark him as a president who (at least) tried to do one thing right. He has made it abundantly clear as he’s filled his cabinet that the interests he serves are not ours. Regardless of your political perspective, these appointments have been business as usual and show him to be every bit the sellout independents said he was all along.

In particular, if Obama wants to reverse the sting caused when he invited Tim “The Fox” Geithner to guard our economic hen-house, he needs to send Tim Geithner a clear message to those of us who work for a living that he really does want us to have a seat at the table. For those of who know that a Single-Payer health care system is the optimal replacement for our for-profit nightmare, an intelligent court pick could help remove the stinger Obama sets by refusing to even say the words, “single-payer”. Like the Clintons before him, Obama is totally in bed with the HMO’s and refuses to discuss the most rational solution.

Obama can keep being such a disappointment because, at the very least, he’s not George W. Bush. But, if he were to chose an American icon to serve on our nation’s highest court, it might go a long way towards redeeming his, so far, unimpressive (and similar) governance. It might help the many who feel betrayed to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Where might we find someone truly principled who has always stuck up for the little guy? Someone who has always understood that deregulation is only beneficial to those seeking to rob and steal. Somebody who has fought the good fight all of his life.

The person I have in mind is a veteran, a lawyer, a professor, an author, a lecturer and a full-time American citizen. He is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard and he has left an indelible mark on populist politics in this era of big business and corporate power. For over forty years, he has been a tireless champion of every important social justice issue.

Here is an opportunity for Obama to prove that his “talk” has a little bit of “walk” in it, as well. The President could put a well-armed “hen” in our judicial “fox-house” and reassure us all that there is a tiny little piece of justice to be found somewhere in the halls of power in this beleaguered democracy of ours.

Supreme Court Justice Ralph Nader. Let that sink in.

Justice R. Nader

Just think about all the positives for a moment before your knee jerks …

Mainstream Democrats could all breathe a collective sigh of relief as Ralph would be unlikely to run in 2012. They could start to set aside their mathematically-challenged (and terribly misplaced) anger at Ralph for 2000 and start to set their own party back on a path that values democracy instead of thwarting and co-opting the growth of alternative parties. Thoughtful Democrats could finally admit in polite company that they agree with Nader on most every single issue without being excoriated.

Mainstream Republicans could rest assured that while Ralph is against corporate power, he’s also only one judge out of nine. How much damage to corporate control could he possibly do? Thoughtful Republicans could rest secure in the knowledge that very few people in our country have shown a more principled or consistent respect and defense of our laws and founding documents than Ralph Nader.

Workers and independents alike would be inspired. They could look to at least one nationally prominent figure who never forgets where he came from and who can always be counted on to do what is right in the face of enormous adversity.

What, if any, are the negatives?

What I Really Want To Know

I consider myself a third party activist. I only support independents and Greens and Libertarians. I do not vote for Democrats or Republicans, ever. As such, I am often asked my opinion by those who play the two party game. I try to be civil and decent. I try to help them understand my viewpoint and I sincerely try to understand theirs.

Over the last decade, I have asked a few questions that I really figure any two-party denizen should be able to answer ... simply to restore my faith in humanity's ability to reason if for no other reason. Can you help me?

I asked Alan Chartok (of our NPR affiliate, WAMC) and his pals on The Media Project, Ira and Rex, to comment on why the media gives Ralph Nader zero coverage during each election cycle. I asked this because I believe that ALL media ignores thrid party candidates on purpose to prop up our system of corporate machine politics. This of course raised the hackles of all three. All of their media mechanisms covered Ralph 2-3 times over the past year. In their view, thats much better coverage than other media gave him. They wondered aloud what my problem is, then? Rex Smith (the Albany Times Union editor) even piped in to say that he felt that Nader already had his time in the sun and that his message doesn't resonate any longer with the American public. Thats why they don't cover him.

There are two huge problems with this narrow answer to my broad question;

1) Does anyone who appreciates the promise of democracy really think that the 1/4 of 1% of media coverage Nader actually got in 2000 was "fair coverage" by any reasonable measure of the word? He was polling 10-18% during that election cycle and it certianly seesm thatbwere he given 10-18% of the coverage that he would have been in the debates which might well have given him a win. Can Nader or othr independents ever truly "resonate" with anyone when the populace is subjected to the two corporate candidates 100 times a day for an entire year and are not even made aware of their many other choices? 36,500 to 3 mentions. Is this really the "liberal" media's idea of "fair and balanced"?

2) If its just Ralph Nader who has worn us all out, why then does corporate media also basically ignore ALL the other independents and third party candidates, as well? In this election cycle, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Gloria LaRiva and Roger Calero were all basically ignored, too. No one even knew about them. How could they possibly have "worn us all out" or "had their time in the sun"? Why is it that THEY didn't deserve to be covered at all? I'm not sure that I can see this behavior as anything short of willful and criminal manipulation of our information and our democracy.

A member of the local DFA chapter asked me Wednesday if I was "happy". You could see that Obama's victory made him feel that a cloud had lifted. His "team" had "won". I would write "Bob" off as a loon except that many other Democrats reached out to me withg similar sentiments, many of whom I respect greatly. To be frank, I feel sorry for people like "Bob". In my world, the ruling and the corporate classes control our democracy. That's a terrible truth but being awake to it allows me to avoid all the emotional highs and lows and the football team mentality that so many Americans seem caught up in.

I know that my fight as a citizen is a daily one against the corporate power that chokes democracy. Its never a winner take all battle waged once every four years. I don't suffer severe depression when a Bush is in office nor do I feel like I just ate a bag of mushrooms because we've elected an Obama. I don't expect the ruling class to deliver me any substantive change for the better regardless of which puppet they say is "our leader". I'm a realist.

I asked "Bob" the same question I have been asking Democrats for ten years, thus far;

"I have been working outside the Democratic Party because I do not believe that the change I want can ever come from such a flawed and co-opted machine. If just one Democrat would tell me what it is EXACTLY that has been accomplished over the last forty years by "working from within", I might better understand why you people do it. Just humor me ... tell me what specific piece of legislation has been passed by either corporate party that could demonstrably be considered pro-worker?"

"Bob" responded heatedly, "I'm not going to answer that but we're a damn sight better than the Republicans. Thats all I have to say." "Bob" then walked out.

This "walking out" is the reason why better than 100 million Americans don't vote in any election cycle. They see no visible, pragmatic reason to do so and we refuse to explain how it works to anyone's benefit to vote. Is it possible that we're not really sure ourselves?

Michael Moore - Hardly a Progressive Thinker

Michael Moore's most recent piece is "How the Democrats Can Blow It" (see it at "alternet.org" or at Moore's webiste). In it, he says that Dems should not demean McCain if they wish Obama to win. Moore calls Republican tactics like "swiftboating" a "cesspool" that "they swim in". At the end of this diatribe, he casually refers to Nader-supporters as "crazy".

How does Moore expect anyone to take him seriously? The attacks on Obama have been no better and no worse than what has been done to Nader by Moore's own precious party, the Demoncrats. Scurrilous attacks are scurrilous attacks regardless of where they come from.

Calling people who HAVE spines and who work for democracy, peace, single-payer health care and sustainable energy "crazy" people is not a particularly effective way to win them over.

Every time this porcine "progressive" speaks of his ex-patron in such disrespectful terms, I am saddened to see so many absorb his bilious effluent.

Moore's worst crime against the truth is his own "swift-boating" of Nader insofar as the 2000 election is concerned. He does it subtly at the end of this piece. This propaganda is every bit as bad as anything the right has thrown at Obama. In a way, its worse because Obama has access to corporate media to respond whereas Nader has no reasonable access.

Here are some facts about 2000 that people may use to better judge Moore's own "cesspool tactics":

1) There were TEN candidates on the ballot in Florida in 2000 (six other candidates beside Bush, Gore, Nader and Buchanan). They ALL exceeded the magic vote total of 537. Using Demologic, this makes them ALL "spoilers"! Can you name even one of these "bastards who gave us Bush"? Do you know one of these "egomaniacs who handed it to the neo-cons"? Have you thanked any of these candidates (besides Ralph) for "destroying our country"? Why was Ralph the ONLY one singled out by the corporate media and unprincipled Demoncrat operatives like Moore? Anyone who frightens the little sissies in the corporate media that much must be having quite an impact.

2) Gore refused to fight for 57,000 black voters who were illegally disenfranchised by the Bush machine in Florida. Thats roughly 106 times more votes than he would have needed to reverse the results of the election! In "Fahrenheit 9/11" we actually see Al Gore banging his little gavel, refusing to hear the pleas of black congressional reps fighting for their constituents. Is Al Gore a) a racist; b) a scumbag: or c) just a dumb f*ck?

3) Nationally, in 2000, EIGHT MILLION Democrats voted for GEORGE W BUSH! Only about 700,000 Dems pulled the lever for Ralph. Why don't these idiots clean up their own pro-war yard before yelling at us about ours?

4) I have a spine so I vote on principle. I understand those who SAY they vote for Democrats "strategically" (thats French for "without spine"). But, those who say this seem painfully unaware that there are 39 safe states, places where even sheep farmers from "Shane" would be voting independent or third party. A vote for either corporate puppet in these states is the poster child for "throwing your vote away".

Moore backed Nader without reservation in 2000, He has NEVER explained why he betrayed us and joined the fake left. He continues to suggest that Bush is Nader's fault. Bush is AMERICA'S fault. Michael, and it is high time you stop trying to pin it on a guy who has spent his entire life fighting battles on our behalf.

The 2006 "transition" shows us exactly what to expect when voters are dumb enough to trust the Democrats! Nothing. Nader supporters are not the crazy ones. We want democracy and we are willing to work at it for as long as it takes. We don't support candidates who accept corporate money. It may take several decades for the mainstream to grok this, but as long as we're out here fighting a TRULY principled battle, we will eventually win. Democrats lose ... even when their candidates win.