You Hold the Power in Your Vote

Armando writing for Daily Kos has an intriguing article about the Supreme Court decision regarding The Affordable Care Act (ACA) which was written by Justice Roberts.  Armando lays the premise that this decision sets forth the long term goals of Roberts and lays a foundation by the Court which will be the basis to restrict progressive values and undue the principles of the New Deal.

Many pundits and politicians were surprised that Roberts joined the four Justices who he generally disagrees with in order the author this opinion.  Unfortunately, the issue and the Court have been divided into two opposing views, either conservative or liberal. Of course the Supreme Court is suppose to be apolitical.  The rulings of the Court are to be based on the precedence of the Court which stems from the interpretation of the Constitution.   As Armando discovers, Roberts recognized prior decisions regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause paired with the Commerce Clause, while at the same time ignoring precedence.  That's right, he just ignored it!

So what does this mean?  It means that Roberts has laid the foundation to reinterpret the Supreme Court's prior decisions without overturning any decisions.  This will allow the Court to change progressive laws and principles merely by having a very conservative activist Supreme Court  rule in the majority.

John Roberts is a very clever man. Of course, he is incredibly gifted intellectually (easily the most intelligent of the conservative justices). But that does not always translate into cleverness.... He is a radical incrementalist, using the language of judicial minimalism to build, precedent by precedent, the structure to achieve, over time, what incendiary radical extreme conservatives want to achieve: the undoing of the New Deal. 

John Roberts is a very clever man. Of course, he is incredibly gifted intellectually (easily the most intelligent of the conservative justices). But that does not always translate into cleverness. But the chief justice is different from his fellow conservative travelers on the Court. He knows that open proclamations of fealty to the Constitution in Exile and to a return to the Lochner Era will never be accepted in one fell swoop. He is a radical incrementalist, using the language of judicial minimalism to build, precedent by precedent, the structure to achieve, over time, what incendiary radical extreme conservatives want to achieve: the undoing of the New Deal. 

In the ACA decision (PDF), the chief justice struck two blows against progressive values: (1) he gained five votes for a theory of limitation of federal power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution; and (2) he gained seven votes (two of them quite shocking, from Justices Breyer and Kagan) for the novel proposition that states have a constitutional right to federal funding from existing programs without condition (or "coercion" as the Court termed it) of the federal government.

In my post A dark cloud on this sunny day: Roberts Court embraces Constitution in Exile, I argued that the rule regarding the Necessary and Proper power expressed by the chief justice and agreed to by the other four conservative justices presented a radical change to our understanding of the Necessary and Proper power. The chief justice presents this change, as he so often does, as no change at all. He presents his de facto overturning of precedent (including the overturn of McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall's seminal opinion regarding the Necessary and Proper power), as fidelity to precedent. It is not.

Compare Chief Justice Roberts' formulation with that of Chief Justice Marshall. Roberts wrote:

[T]he individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms. Each of our prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. For example, we have upheld provisions permitting continued confinement of those already in federal custody when they could not be safely released, Comstock, supra, at _ (slip op., at 1–2); criminalizing bribes involving organizations receiving federal funds, Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 600, 602, 605 (2004); and tolling state statutes of limitations while cases are pending in federal court, Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U. S. 456, 459, 462 (2003). The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power. [Emphasis supplied.]

Of course, the chief justice's statement that "the individual mandate vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power" is blatantly false. The Affordable Care Act is not a bootstrap from the individual mandate. In fact, the opposite is true: The individual mandate was enacted solely because in Congress' judgment, the Affordable Care Act could only be effective if a mechanism such as the individual mandate was included in it. In other words, it was a classic example of congressional use of its Necessary and Proper power. As the chief justice puts it, "exercise[] of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power." Regulation of the health care and health insurance market is undoubtedly valid under the Commerce Clause. The individual mandate is undoubtedly a valid exercise of the Necessary and Proper power to make effective the Affordable Care Act. 

In McCulloch, Chief Justice Marshall stated:

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.

Chief Justice Roberts' ACA ruling on the Necessary and Proper power cannot be harmonized with McCulloch. But he did not overrule McCulloch. Indeed, the chief justice claims fealty to McCulloch. As I say, Chief Justice Roberts is a clever man.

Yes, Chief Justice Roberts is a very clever man. And he is, to use the common parlance, playing "the long game." Today, the chief justice is hailed as a man of moderation, a pragmatic man, not the ideologue of the likes of Justices Thomas and Scalia. And this is what makes him the most dangerous threat to our progressive values. In the coming terms, when the chief justice shepherds the overturning of affirmative action and declares the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, we will be reminded that the chief justice is a moderate, pragmatic minimalist by the usual suspects.

And we will look back at the cherished progressive values now under threat and wonder what happened. Unless we fight. We must also consider how the chief justice threatens the ability of the Congress to enact progressive solutions to our current and future problems.
In her dissent in the ACA case, Justice Ginsburg wrote:

Why should THE CHIEF JUSTICE strive so mightily to hem in Congress’ capacity to meet the new problems arising constantly in our ever developing modern economy? I find no satisfying response to that question in his opinion

Why indeed? Because the conservative project is to undo the New Deal. It is to impose severe restrictions on the ability of the national government to implement progressive solutions to our national problems. Climate change? The federal government may not be able to do anything about that. Income inequality? Could be a local problem. The progressive project understands how important it is that the national government can act to address our problems. The conservative project is hell bent on defeating this vision. Chief Justice Roberts is playing the long game to undermine the progressive project. To undermine the vision President Franklin Delano Roosevelt outlined in his 1937 Constitution Day speech:

In these days when the undemocratic concentration of economic power has brought with it a corresponding concentration of legal ability against the democratic purposes of the Constitution, only the utmost vigilance and the utmost willingness to fight for our Constitutional heritage will guarantee its continuance. 

Furthermore, a democracy cannot help counting, and seeking ways and means to avoid for the future, the terrible cost at which its ultimate triumphs have had to be achieved. […] We know that it takes time to adjust government to the needs of society and that deliberation upon the remedy is indispensable to wise reform. We also know that government must keep pace with changes in circumstances substantially as the changes occur. […] 

These unwarranted delays in the accommodation of the government of today to the needs of today have not been due, I cannot too often repeat, to any language that the Fathers used in the Constitution to bind their successors. […]
I know and every lawyer knows that you will find nothing in our Constitution which forbids the national government to do any of these things. They have been forbidden or jeopardized, not because of anything the Constitution says but because men with axes to grind have chosen to put their lawyers' own notions of policy upon the silence or the vagueness of the Constitution. [Emphasis supplied.]

Chief Justice Roberts is their man for our age. He is the man for those with "axes to grind" against progressive values. 

How can he be defeated? By denying him the votes necessary on the Supreme Court to enact his pernicious project. This is done by reelecting President Barack Obama and electing future Democratic presidents. There are no other options.

This is the most important progressive project of this election and future presidential elections.

Defeat the conservative activist Supreme Court by voting.  VOTE for Barack Obama, 2012!!!! 

Your vote will effect history for years!

Corporate Stranglehold on the Media

Ernest Partridge asks an important question about conservative spin, "Why the Left Has No Answer to the Right-Wing Lie Machine?" Partridge contends that the right-wing has unrestricted access to the media because if the oligarchy that owns mass media. There are six media conglomerates that control most of the media industry in the U.S -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) and General Electric's NBC.

What if there were a great debate concerning the nature and future of American society, and only one side showed up?

That approximately describes the condition of the U. S. media today.

The right wing is operating a super-charged carnival of hype, hysteria and hoopla, while the left struggles along with a pipsqueek sideshow: a few magazines like The Nation, Mother Jones and The American Prospect, with minuscule circulation among the already converted, some tolerated columnists like Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich, and of course there’s Shultz, Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC.

Corporate Media

The influence of FOX News is amplified as their antics and outrages – “birtherism,” climate change denial, baseless accusations of “socialism” or even “fascism” – are uncritically reported far and wide by the mainstream media (MSM). In addition to FOX, the airwaves are crammed solid with right-wing talk shows – about 90%, by some counts. Leading these is Rush Limbaugh, with an audience estimated from fifteen to thirty million.

To be sure, there are many admirable broadcast voices on the left, in addition to the MSNBC team: Thom Hartmann, Amy Goodman, Bill Maher, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, Mike Papantonio, Cenk Uygur, and Randi Rhodes. But their messages are uncoordinated, dispersed, and poorly promoted. And unlike FOX and Limbaugh, etc., there is almost no corporate media amplification of progressive talk radio and cable TV. Strange to say, some of the most incisive liberal commentary seems to originate with the comedians, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.

Corporate Media Bias

The regressive bias of the corporate media is starkly revealed by the coverage, and the non-coverage, of the public demonstrations of last month. When a couple of thousand tea-party or gun-rights enthusiasts show up on the Mall in Washington, or across the Potomac in Virginia, the mainstream media is there to cover them en masse. But when up to ten thousand protesters gather on Wall Street, or fifty thousand jam downtown Los Angeles to protest the Arizona “show your papers” law, these events might just as well have taken place on the far side of the moon.

When Olbermann or Maddow make a trivial errors of pronunciation, attribution, or date of an event, etc. they make on-air corrections as soon as these slip-ups are brought to their attention. But when O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, et al, tell flat-out demonstrable lies, they do so without fear of consequence and therefore without public correction. And their fearlessness is justified, for no one in the mainstream media is likely to hold them to account. To be sure, Ed Shultz calls them out in his “Psycho Talk,” and Keith Olbermann in his “Worst Persons,” and Rachel Maddow does not hesitate to call a liar a liar, but when they do the regressive talksters and the MSM take little notice, which only further demonstrates the insignificance of progressive media commentary.

Case in point: A couple of weeks ago, Bill O’Reilly told his audience that a “team of FOX researchers” had determined that, contrary to the accusations on MSNBC, no one at FOX had ever said that those who refused to sign up for health insurance under “Obamacare” would be jailed. Olbermann then promptly collected and strung together more than a half-dozen video clips of FOXers stating precisely that. The final clip was a segment from Bill O’Reilly’s show. A slam-dunk refutation, and by no means the first one. Did this embarrass FOX and O’Reilly? Not in the least.

And so it continues, almost daily: For example, the consensus of thousands of climate scientists and the conclusions of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications can not prevail over the well-orchestrated denialism of the oil and coal industries’ public relations campaign, a campaign that utilizes the familiar PR techniques that reassured millions of cigarette smokers that the health effects of smoking was no big deal, thus leading millions to an early demise. (See the Union of Concerned Scientists report, “Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air – how ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science.”)

False Accusations Go Unchecked

No accusation is too absurd to be credited by the right-wing propaganda machine. Last week, Rush Limbaugh suggested that the Gulf oil disaster was the result of a plot by “wacko-environmentalists. Quoting Limbaugh: “What better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants than by blowing up a rig?” And on FOX News, Bush’s Press Secretary, Dana Perino, introduced a conspiracy theory by saying: “I’m not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate? You have to wonder…if there was sabotage involved.”

Such irresponsible accusations by FOX News and Rush Limbaugh are nothing new. Far more significant was the behavior of the major broadcast media (CBS, NBC and ABC) and the once credible newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, in the months immediately preceding the outbreak of the Iraq War in 2002.

The oligarchy mainstream media.

The oligarchy that owns and runs our government and controls our mass media has learned Goebbels's lesson well: A lie unanswered is a lie believed – more so if the lie is repeated, over and over again.

Accordingly, a successful propaganda campaign must accomplish two essential and coordinated tasks: (a) tell the lies, and (b) see to it that they are not effectively refuted. The six media conglomerates that now control most of the US media accomplished both tasks supremely well.

And what an impressive roster of lies it is! Here’s a sample:

• In 2000: Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. Gore also claimed to have “discovered” the Love Canal toxic site. Bush won the election fair and square. The Supreme Court decision, Bush v. Gore, was legally sound and, in any case, did not affect the outcome of the election. There was no reason to believe that the unverifiable touch-screen voting machines were not accurate. Lt. George Bush completed his required service with the Texas Air National Guard.
• 2002: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” (Dick Cheney).
• 2004. John Kerry’s alleged heroic war record in Viet Nam was a fake.

Etcetera, etcetera – a list of lies much too long to enumerate here.

What Remedies?

What is to be done?

The GOP and the regressive right have pointed the way; in particular, in Lewis Powell’s notorious 1971 memo to the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. While there is considerable dispute as to the actual influence of this memo, this much is clear; whether by design or by mere coincidence, the Powell Memo accurately describes how the regressive right has achieved its current dominance in American politics. The left would do well to study that memo and, when appropriate, adopt its proposals. In particular:

• Establish “think tanks:” progressive counterparts to The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Cato Institute, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc., then promote the publications of its resident scholars and their appearance on the mainstream media. There are, of course, progressive think tanks such as The Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America and their work is commendable. But the funding for these organizations is minuscule in comparison with financial support of their ideological opposites.

• Endow academic professorships and establish scholarships and fellowships. Encourage progressives to participate in the governance of educations institutions, from local school boards to university boards of trustees.

• Underwrite the writing, publication and promotion of progressive books, journals and websites. Establish publishing houses, like the regressives' Regnery, devoted exclusively to progressive ideas and policy proposals.

• Gain editorial control of mass media outlets: newspapers, cable networks, radio, etc. Once in control, do not make them mere purveyors of left propaganda designed to “balance” the right. Instead, progressive media must restore the practice of responsible journalism: “just the facts” combined with aggressive investigative reporting. [...]

In the final analysis, the progressives have a formidable and invincible ally: reality.[...]

Even so, this much remains compellingly clear: unless and until the progressive left develops an effective media voice, there can be no restoration of American democracy, no return to political sanity, and no establishment of economic justice.

Read the complete article HERE.

Obama is not the problem. We are!

Chris Hedges is fed up with liberals. He thinks Liberals are Useless.

Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the president to come back to his “true” self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.

I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. [...] He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don’t dislike Obama—I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor—though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered. [...]

The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses.

Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act—designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing—and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush’s secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens?

The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry. At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back? We may lose if we step outside the mainstream, but at least we will salvage our self-esteem and integrity. [...]

If liberals had even a bit of their fortitude we could have avoided this mess. But they don’t. So here we are again, begging Obama to be Obama. He is Obama. Obama is not the problem. We are.

Whether you agree with Hedges or not, it is fair to say that being a Democrat does not equate with being a liberal or a progressive. The Blue Dog or 'conserative' Democrats exemplify that point. Not only are they useless when it comes to liberal/progressive values but they are antithetical to the concept.

Add to the equation, the supposedly 'liberal' Democrats who don't stand up for what they say they believe in. They don't fight for the values they say they represent. They don't support the issues that are important to their constituents. Democracy is about representation. When our representatives fail us, then the system fails us.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

David Sirota thinks we should stop bashing Republicans and start pressuring Democrats.

Some folks have expressed exasperation that some progressive voices have spent lots of time pushing Democrats to be better on policy, rather than spending lots of time bashing Republicans. Their theory is that Republicans are the real enemy and Democrats are the real allies, and so therefore, criticizing, pressuring and cajoling Democrats is a destructive waste of time.

But here's the thing: Democrats control 100% of the votes to pass legislation through the House, 95% (57 out of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster) of the votes to pass legislation through the Senate and 100% of the single presidential vote needed to sign legislation into law. They also control the state house, state senate and governorship in states that comprise more than one third of the entire U.S. population. So that means despite the cable news paradigm that attempts to portray every political fight as an epic red-versus-blue battle between Republicans and Democrats, the real fight to pass concrete policy - at least for these two years - is mostly inside the Democratic Party.

Indeed, if most of us in the progressive movement consider ourselves Democrats or allied with Democrats, then Barack Obama was absolutely right when he said, "we are the ones we've been waiting for." We, the Democratic coalition, are the ones who have the overwhelming power to change things, or not change things, and barely a day goes by where we don't see evidence of Democrats - not Republicans - standing in the way of change.

During at least these two years (and hopefully longer), the fate of all of the potential bills that our country needs passed - from financial regulation to universal health care to a new energy policy - will be mostly decided by Democrats. So while I get that we've been programmed over many years to see things in the red-versus-blue paradigm, and while I certainly agree that Republicans are odious, let me offer this hypothesis: Spending most of our time bashing Republicans and not pressuring Democrats is a politically stupid waste of time.

If our country's fate will be decided mostly by the battles inside the Democratic Party, and if we as a movement instead focus most of our efforts waging battles outside the Democratic Party, then we are not really engaging in the most important battles of the moment - we would be wasting our time.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

From a Progressive Point of View

Obama Is a Two-Faced Liar. Aw-RIGHT!

Via Greg Palast

Republicans are right. President Barack Obama treated them like dirt, didn't give a damn what they thought about his stimulus package, loaded it with a bunch of programs that will last for years and will never leave the budget, is giving away money disguised as "tax refunds," and is sneaking in huge changes in policy, from schools to health care, using the pretext of an economic emergency.

Way to go, Mr. O! Mr. Down-and-DirtyChicago pol. Street-fightin' man. Covering over his break-your-face power play with a "we're all post-partisan friends" BS.

And it's about time.

Frankly, I was worried about this guy. Obama's appointing Clinton-droids to the Cabinet, bloated incompetents like Larry Summers as "Economics Czar," made me fear for my country, that we'd gotten another Democrat who wished he were a Republican.

Then came Obama's money bomb. The House bill included $125 billion for schools (TRIPLING federal spending on education), expanding insurance coverage to the unemployed, making the most progressive change in the tax code in four decades by creating a $500 credit against social security payroll deductions, and so on.

It's as if Obama dug up Ronald Reagan's carcass and put a stake through The Gipper's anti-government heart. Aw-RIGHT!

About the only concession Obama threwto the right-wing trogs was to remove the subsidy for condoms, leaving hooker-happy GOP Senators, like David Vitter, to pay for their own protection. S'OK with me.

And here's the proof that Bam is The Man: Not one single Republican congressman voted for the bill. And that means that Obama didn't compromise, the way Clinton and Carter would have, to win the love of these condom-less jerks.

And we didn't need'm. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!

Now I understand Obama's weird moves: dinner with those creepy conservative columnists, earnest meetings at the White House with the Republican leaders, a dramatic begging foray into Senate offices. Just as the Republicans say, it was all a fraud. Obama was pure Chicago, Boss Daley in a slim skin, putting his arms around his enemies, pretending to listen and care and compromise, then slowly, quietly, slipping in the knife. All while the media praises Obama's "post-partisanship." Heh heh heh.

Love it. Now we know why Obama picked that vindictive little viper Rahm Emanuel as staff chief: everyone visiting the Oval office will be greeted by the Windy City hit man who would hack up your grandma if you mess with the Godfather-in-Chief.

I don't know about you, but THIS is the change I've been waiting for.

Will it last? We'll see if Obama caves in to more tax cuts to investment bankers. We'll see if he stops the sub-prime scum-bags from foreclosing on frightened families. We'll see if he stands up to the whining, gormless generals who don't know how to get our troops out of Iraq. (In SHIPS, you doofuses!)

Look, don't get your hopes up. But it may turn out the new president's ... a Democrat!

Why We Need More Progressive Voices on TV

Paul Krugman on ABC's This Week.

Via Open Left:
As you watch, ask yourself, "What would this segment be like if Krugman wasn't there?"



Aside from Krugman, what other progressive voices are "ready for prime time" and should be on Sunday roundtables? (I nominate David Sirota, Cenk Uyger, Christy Harvey, and Ari Melber, to name a few)