Is Chuck Grassley Still Capable Of Working For The Good Of The Citizens Of Iowa?

Julian Bond has been fighting the good fight

for a long, long time

I first met Julian Bond in 1966 when I was in college and he had been elected to-- and denied seating in-- the Georgia state legislature. I blogged about meeting him a couple years ago; fun post about something I'm very proud of. In case all you know about Julian is his service as the chairman of the NAACP from 1998 until this year, he was around long before that. He helped found the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and was the first president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. And he served for 20 years in the Georgia state House and state Senate, although that all started kind of rough when the crackers who ran that show refused to seat him because they hated smart, uppity black people-- the same way Georgia racist Lynn Westmoreland hates President Obama half a century later-- and because he was opposed to the war against Vietnam. When I met him the Supreme Court had just ruled 9-0 (Bond vs Floyd) that the Georgia House of Representatives had denied him his freedom of speech and was required to seat him. He went on to organize the state legislature's Black Caucus, which wasn't very popular with the power structure there either. So what's all this got to do with Chuck Grassley? Julian did a spectacular OpEd in the Des Moines Register yesterday about Grassley's idiotic attack on the legacy of Thurgood Marshall.

Now that the Senate has formally approved Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, one thing we know about her is that she clerked for and reveres Thurgood Marshall. That is because this became a major line of attack by Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chief among them Iowa's Sen. Charles Grassley, as they gauged her fitness as a potential justice. Many watchers were surprised by the attacks against Marshall by Grassley and his fellow Republican senators. I wasn't one of them. Appalled, yes; surprised, no.

Knowing that none of Marshall's 112 opinions from his time as a judge on the Second Circuit was overturned, Grassley nevertheless said Marshall's legal viewpoint "does not comport with the proper role of a judge or judicial method."

Kagan's work for Marshall, Grassley said, "indicates a liberal and seemingly outcome-based approach to your legal analysis."

Knowing that Marshall led the fight to dismantle the "separate but equal" doctrine in public education, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the committee, suggested Kagan was somehow wrong for esteeming him as her hero.

These attacks didn't surprise me because they're completely consistent with a party locked in the past, echoing the anti-civil rights message of those who opposed Justice Marshall's own confirmation in 1967.

Grassley, Sessions and their fellow Republicans roasted Solicitor General Kagan with the same attacks used against Marshall four decades earlier. Then, the late Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina complained about the likelihood that Marshall would be "a judicial activist," which he defined as someone "unable to exercise the self-restraint which is inherent in the judicial process when it is properly understood and applied, and who is willing to add to the Constitution things that are not in it and to subtract from the Constitution things which are in it."

When Ervin spoke of adding rights to the Constitution, there was no doubt that he was referring to the court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which he had fervently opposed. Ervin went on to join with 10 other southern Senators in voting against Marshall's confirmation.

Now, in an effort to curry favor with an increasingly extreme base, personified by the likes of Sarah Palin, Republican senators flagrantly disparage a civil rights hero and the legacy of equality for which he fought. Although smears against Justice Marshall might have seemed out of place in the committee room, they fit right in among some of the GOP's most extreme supporters who wave posters portraying our president as a witch doctor and fling racial slurs. For that matter, they fit right in alongside attacks against last year's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who was herself accused of racism at the same time she was painted with ugly stereotypes about Latinos.

Grassley cannot participate in these subtle smears and at the same time claim to be representing all Iowans. Instead he, like others in the GOP, is making a calculated decision to pander to some while spitting on the values and history of others.

Blue America is very enthusiastic about the progressive Democrat running against Grassley, Roxanne Conlin. She joined us for a live blog session back in February at Crooks & Liars. When I asked her to tell me why Grassley voted against Elena Kagan's confirmation she seemed to indicate that Grassley had changed... and rather dramatically.

Senator Grassley’s vote against Elena Kagan is proof that Washington is broken, and any bipartisanship in the Senate is on the verge of extinction. Senator Grassley has chosen to vote against two talented, qualified women nominated to the Supreme Court, by a Democratic president, after decades of support for past nominations. This is an incredibly dangerous and disturbing precedent.  Voting on a Supreme Court nominee is a serious responsibility and Iowans deserve much better than childish, partisan games.

Obama's Kagan Choice Is As Ugly As Nick Clegg's Abandonment Of UK Electoral Reform-- The Reality Of Politicians Never Lives Up To The Hype

I'd much rather think about the drama around the hung Parliament in the U.K. than about Obama's predictable but disappointing nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. I think I'll sit that one out and see if fellow moderate Democrats like Ben Nelson and Arlen Specter can defend the vicious and baseless attacks the right will use to go after a nominee who should make them a lot happier than she makes progressives. They don't know how to accept surrender gracefully.

I don't know an awful lot about Nick Clegg. But I'm not very inspired by what I've learned watching the election campaign in the U.K. and the bargaining in its aftermath. Perhaps he'll come through in the end. What's at stake though? Well, that's the question. Everybody wants to rule the world, of course. And they're worried about ruling the world after the next elections which are certainly going to come sooner than most people would prefer. And, then, there is that one little principle we talked about yesterday, proportional representation, the principle the Liberals, and then the Lib-Dems, have been fighting for for just short of a century. And now they have it within their grasp. But they also have Nick Clegg as their team captain. He doesn't seem to have the intestinal fortitude to go for it.

His party grassroots certainly supports him going all the way to get it. Polling of Lib-Dem supporters show that an astounding 90% support Clegg’s decision to enter into discussions with the Conservative party based on the fact that they had the most votes (36%). More important, however, is that 80% say that without "significant progress on electoral reform" the Lib-Dems should dump the Tories entirely. I'm sure Obama would take the same weak, middle of the road position Clegg seems to be taking. If he walks into government with anything less than proportional representation in the bag, he will have failed dismally and spectacularly and go down in history as a worthless shill. Some on the left, in fact, feel that the best thing that could happen for Labour right now-- other than Gordon Brown's departure from leadership-- would be an unprincipled Lib-Con coalition.

A briefing paper published today by the Fabian Society shows that a decision by Nick Clegg to join forces with David Cameron would provide an opportunity for a major electoral revival by Labour at a second election in 2010. It would also place many Lib Dem MPs in danger of being unseated.

If the Lib Dems team up with the Tories it would be a betrayal of the expectations of many progressive voters who voted Lib Dem last Thursday. Many supported the Lib Dems in the belief that they were a progressive, liberal party of the centre-left. Many more will have voted Lib Dem as a way to keep the Tories out.

For example, a YouGov poll just before the election showed:

• 43% of Lib Dem voters described themselves as centre-left or left, compared to 29% who described themselves as centrist and just 9% who described themselves as centre-right or right.

• 39% of Lib Dem voters described the Liberal Democrat party as being centre-left or left, compared to 33% of Lib Dem voters who described the party as being centrist and just 5% who described the party as being centre-right or right

.
This suggests that somewhere between a third and a half of Lib Dem voters could find themselves alienated if Clegg teams up with the Tories. Our analysis shows that this alienation of progressive Liberal Democrat voters from a Liberal-Tory pact would suddenly put scores of seats into play for the Labour Party at a second election in 2010.

...At a national level, the Lib Dems have positioned themselves as opponents of the Tories for the last two decades. A Lib-Tory pact would make Labour the sole source of opposition to the Conservatives in many seats, allowing Labour to persuade many former Lib Dem voters to switch to them.

There are 25 seats that would swing back from the Conservatives to Labour if just one-in-five Lib Dem voters in these seats switches to Labour. These would include many seats in the South and the Midlands that Labour lost at the General Election, such as Hendon, Thurrock, Broxtowe, Bedford and Hove, as well as the Tories’ prized gain in the North East, Stockton South.

Fifty-five seats would swing back to Labour if one-in-two Lib Dem voters in these seats switched to Labour. Though a tall order, along with seats taken off the Lib Dems, this could be enough for Labour to regain a majority at a possible second election in 2010.

Tories Feel Power Slipping Away, Blink... Then Panic

Petrified that their chance to run the show could go by the wayside-- perhaps forever-- David Cameron and the Conservatives reacted to Gordon Brown's resignation and the opening of formal talks between Labour and the Lib-Dems by caving in to the Lib-Dem demand for electoral reform, or did they? William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, says he's made Clegg a "final offer," which amounts to a national referendum on some kind of proportional representation scheme. Labour has offered to make it law and then go to the voters for approval. So which party will the Lib-Dems choose?

Speaking outside the House of Commons, Mr Hague urged the Lib Dems to accept the Tory deal, arguing that to join with Labour would mean "a second unelected prime minister in a row" and the imposition of voting reform without first consulting the public in a referendum.

This was later denied by Labour sources, who said they would pass a law on AV [Alternative Vote] immediately, but then hold a referendum to allow voters to approve or reject it. There were also unconfirmed reports Labour was offering the prospect of full proportional representation at a later stage.

Mr Hague said a deal with the Tories was the only way to guarantee the "strong, stable government" the Lib Dems say they want, as it would give the two parties a "secure Parliamentary majority of 76."... Mr Hague said that in a possible referendum, Conservative MPs opposed to change in the voting system would be "at liberty" to campaign against it.

Will Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Be Another Bought-And-Paid For Corporate Hack Like Roberts, Alito, Scalia-- But With A Faux "Liberal" Tag?

Yesterday Robert Reich posted a terrific piece on his blog, The White House Should Stop Pandering to the Street and Support Three Critical Banking Reforms. He hits the nail on the head... as usual. But as long as he's giving the White House advice about how to stop pandering to Wall Street and corporate predators in general, he should make sure they don't appoint a Supreme Court justice who thinks her job is primarily about preserving the corporate status quo. Sometime in the next few days-- or even few hours-- President Obama is going to announce his nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. As Ken explained last month, there is no "Liberal Bloc" on the Court because there are no actual liberals on the court. This is at odds with the way one of the CBS talking heads in the video above discusses it with the other CBS talking heads. [Perhaps the two of them forgot to read Ken's post last month.]

I refuse to refer to Justice Stevens's position as leader of a "liberal bloc" on the Court. Can we be serious for a moment, and acknowledge that there are no liberals on the Court? Just because you're not a screaming right-wing loon hell-bent on shredding the Constitution for the greater glory of the super-rich and powerful, that doesn't make you a liberal.

I assume that for the foreseeable future no liberal can even be considered for the High Court on grounds of confirmability. And it would be fairly silly to expect President Obama, who isn't a liberal and seems to have mostly contempt for liberals, to be looking for one.

William Brennan was a liberal. Thurgood Marshall was a liberal. Whereas Steven Breyer is... um, has anyone figured out yet what that guy is? And with all due respect to Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor, and to former Justice Souter, fine justices all, they never claimed to be, and aren't, liberals. In his recent NYT interview, Justice Stevens insisted to Adam Liptak that he's a conservative.

Glenn Greenwald has been leading the opposition to frontrunner Elana Kagan in the blogosphere and this morning he tied all the strands together over at Salon: the blank slate thing presidents seem to be looking for in order to not have their nominees suffer the same fates as Nixon's hapless-- and spectacularly, glaringly unqualified-- Haynsworth and Carswell; the unfortunate Goldman Sachs/Wall Street bankster connection that Digby exposed yesterday; the "diversity problem;" and the likelihood that Kagan is a supporter of more unfettered executive power, a worrisome position for SCOTUS followers on both sides of the partisan divide. Today A.P. has a far more prosaic, superficial, demographic-oriented and horse-racey perspective on how the nomination might unfold. See how many howling errors you can find in this statement (which is, of course, the lens through which almost anyone looking at the nomination will be told to see it): "This time around, Obama is certain to name a left-of-center successor to Stevens, the court's leading liberal. Finding a younger justice, who theoretically would serve longer, could enhance Obama's legacy."

Fortunately for the Insider elite, most people don't seem all that exercised over this-- at least not so far. Yesterday MoveOn and People For the American Way ran an ad (which was rejected by the NY Times and released a poll, with the intention of sparking some populist interest in the process (and outcome) and drawing attention to how incredibly unbalanced the Supreme Court has become in favor of corporate interests over the interests of ordinary people (or, you might say, the victims of corporate interests). The ad makes a point that most Americans, across the ideological (non-corporate) divide agree with:

The United States Supreme Court was founded to protect the American people, not American big business.

Yet recent rulings have allowed corporations to get away with paying women less than men, discriminating against the rights of older workers, dodging liability for faulty medical devices, ducking the Clean Water Act and avoid paying damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Most alarmingly, the Court has also just declared that corporations have the same rights as people, with unlimited rights to pour money into electing corporate candidates who will protect their interests.

Senator Charles Schumer declared of this ruling, “The bottom line is, the Supreme Court has just predetermined the winners of next November’s election. It won’t be the Republicans or the Democrats and it won’t be the American people: it will be Corporate America.”

A Supreme Court designed to protect our citizens has instead expanded the rights of powerful companies, working through the radical right majority led by Justices Roberts and Alito.

So much is at stake. A recent poll shows that the majority of Americans believe that this Supreme Court favors big corporations over individuals. The Court will soon rule on consumer rights in bankruptcy, workplace protection against discrimination, the new health care law and a copyright rule that could dramatically increase consumer prices. Justice Stevens was a staunch advocate for the rights of ordinary Americans, and his replacement must be too.

Americans need a Justice who will dispense justice to Americans, not protect corporate profits at our expense.

The findings of the poll-- done by the White House's favorite pollsters (and Rahm Emanuel's housemate, Stanley Greenberg)-- show that average Americans want Obama to nominate someone willing to stand up for consumers and workers in need of protection from powerful, predatory forces beyond the control of individuals. "In an age," explains Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, "of intense partisan polarization, this preference is expressed in near-equal numbers by both Democratic and Republican voters." (Limbaugh and Beck haven't telegraphed their walking orders to the mindless right-wing troops yet, but, nonetheless, this is a good position from which Obama can start.)

Ø  While the Supreme Court enjoys the respect of average voters, its standing is colored by a majority of voters who believe that the Court favors big corporations over individuals. Such views of the court are shared by Democrats and Republicans. 
 
Ø  The perception of corporate bias is underscored by broad disagreement with many recent Supreme Court decisions, the Citizens United case among them. 
 
Ø  By a 20-point margin, voters believe that when Senators evaluate the President’s nominee, they should focus on the nominee’s understanding of the impact that legal decisions have on the lives of everyday Americans, rather than focusing solely on the nominee’s experience and qualifications. A 61 percent majority of Democrats feel this way, as do 60 percent of Republicans. 
 
Ø  Similarly, the most appealing description of a potential nominee tested in this survey is someone who will “be fair so that individuals and families get an impartial hearing and not give preferential treatment to powerful individuals and big corporations.”