LAT, Brownstein: Opponents of Roberts Taking Populist Tack

[DeepModem Mom]

Opponents of Nominee Taking Populist Tack
Critics of John Roberts Jr. for high court justice are talking economics, not abortion rights.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Critics of John G. Roberts Jr. are turning to populist economic arguments to thwart his nomination to the Supreme Court, echoing one of the themes Al Gore used against George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential campaign.

In their first reactions to Roberts, many of the Democrats and liberal groups resisting his selection by President Bush are trying to portray him as a threat to the economic interests of average families. The strategy — even the language — is similar to Gore's effort to frame the 2000 presidential campaign as a choice between "the people" and "the powerful."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) thundered in his first floor statement on the nomination this week: "Americans deserve to know if nominees will be on the side of justice and individual liberties, or if they will side with powerful special interests."

This use of populist economic arguments appears partly driven by necessity: Roberts' record as an attorney and federal judge is much more extensive on economic than social issues, and thus potentially offers more ammunition for critics.

But the strategy also reflects the decision reached by liberal groups, after years of planning for a Supreme Court vacancy, to spotlight bread-and-butter economic issues as much as more emotional social concerns, such as gay marriage or abortion....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-econ23jul23,0,6549320.story?coll=la-home-nation

[DBoon]

1. It's about time!

Social issues are an artificial division designed to perpetuate an economic elite.

For every Rove v. Wade, there will be 20 decisions affecting corporate power and economic justice.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Excellent, much better strategy

"Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal group expected to help lead the fight against Roberts, said polling conducted by his organization found that most Americans would oppose a justice seen as too close to big business.

"If John Roberts is perceived as someone who is not going to protect the rights of ordinary Americans, and will favor corporate interests, there will be a 70% majority against his nomination," Neas said.

Senior White House strategists and the independent campaigns backing Roberts predict such arguments will not seriously threaten his confirmation, in part because they maintain his record is too complex to support the portrayal. They also believe Bush's two presidential victories, especially his win over Gore, have shown the limits of a class-based populist message.

"A reprise of the Al Gore campaign projected onto the Supreme Court nominee five years later is just not an effective strategy," said one GOP strategist who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing White House plans for the confirmation fight."

If they actually believe that Bush had an election victory over Al, they are clueless or liars or both.

[stray cat]

3. Excellent, thoughtful and legitimate stance.

Good for them. It is nice to see a populist approach.

[Nite Owl]

4. This is good

Roe vs Wade can't be the only reason to be against him. This group in the WH doesn't really care about that, they are phoney Christians and use the fundie base to whip up popular support. Their goals are the pleasing of their corporate buddies, to undermine the worker, that is what they really want, to keep the workers hungry and wanting and without any way to get relief.

[necso]

5. Whatever (effective) we can use. /nt

[Robert Oak]

6. strategy? It looks true on first glance to me

This is what I wrote about in the DU activist letter writing campaign.

I don't have this guy's total background but it seems to me he'd assist
in ripping apart the government's ability to regulate business activity (corporations) as well as environmental law. I'm also concerned about
workers rights.

Now this is a biggie coming from a 1937 Supreme court ruling which upheld the minimum wage law. FDR was ruled against on his New Deal legislation by the Supreme court until 1937. They claimed it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
(this is one of the reasons why you cannot say for certain if FDR's policies would have worked, for the Supreme court constantly killed them).

It was so bad FDR was trying to change the constitution to pack the court with more justices but one justice suddenly switched to side with the liberals on the court and voted to uphold social security, minimum wage act and National Labor Relations Act.


I mentioned Roe V. Wade and certainly it's "up there" but the thing I think to bring to light is Roberts as a corporate representative.

So, (I am not a lawyer or anything so someone correct me if this is wrong), it seems to me there is a lot of precedent to unravel workers rights, social security, environmental rights from Supreme court rulings and interpretations from 1936 backwards.

[MissMarple]

7. I think there is a movement to overturn social legislation.

There are people in the U.S. who wish the New Deal and the Great Society had never happened. They link social legislation and the "permissiveness" they believe is destroying our culture together and blame "liberal" bogeymen for everything they personally consider as wrong with our society. For some reason they have divorced themselves from reality and refuse to see their own faults and evils and the all too real issues that our country faces.

Also, the number of Supreme Court justices is not fixed in the Constitution and has varied over time from I think five to the current nine. Tradition keeps it at nine. But if it would benefit George I think he would try what Roosevelt contemplated and appoint more. And he might be able to get away with it, just another unstable, divisive thing among the others that he has perpetrated on this country.

[Robert Oak]

8. it didn't help that Democrats abandoned workers

Seriously, by doing all of those trade agreements, starting with NAFTA
so many blue collar workers said "screw the Democrats" because they abandoned working people.

They do not see any difference between the two parties as a result.
(I heard this over and over again, no difference between Kerry and Bush and the focus was on economic issues in 2004).

[MissMarple]

11. And it looks like the economic issues are looming larger.

Our papers, the Gazette and the Denver Post were almost schizophrenic regarding job growth/job loss and the quarterly earnings thing and the long term health of the corporations. This economic climate is just too weird for me, but I don't really know all that much about economics.

But I hope the Dems can get the populist bandwagon rolling and really mean what they say. I do believe the American worker is in a really tough spot. Job loss, health care, education, pension benefits, transportation... no one wants to take responsibility for these things.

[Robert Oak]

14. economics

Corporations bank on people going to sleep on economic issues.

It does take some study to understand what is going on, even when one has a background in economics!

So getting the public to become aware of this, plus campaign funding is an issue...to get elected now requires a huge war chest, hence
major corporate donors.

The whole thing forces a sell-out to corporations and is a self-feeding disaster.

But, still Democrats need to stop being corpocrats to win and fortunately Dean proved that fund raising via grassroots to large amounts if possible.

[bread_and_roses]

15. You can say that again - and again, and again

I heard the same thing day after day from blue-collar, poor, and minority voters (or potential voters - I could not even persuade a lot of the people to whom I door-to-doored to register).

It would be good to hear some "economic justice" language from the Democrats.

And that imbecile puppet did not win the 2000 election.

[Demeter]

13. And None Of Them Lived Through That Imaginary Golden Era

when poverty was a retirement plan.

[MasonJar]

9. He has some very poor comments/decisions on civil rights. As

our beloved Rove would say, "Roberts is fair game." Let's shoot from the hip, Shane-style.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Roberts is most certainly going to be an Activist Judge

Which is what the freepers and Rush cry about all the time. Those damn Activist Judges. He's a trail lawyer and a registered lobbyist too. Nice combo. A real man of the people, not.

[delhurgo]

12. It should get harder and harder for Bush

to nominate conservatives as more seats open up. I don't think you can stop Roberts, but you can put yourself in a better position for the next nominee. You have to make sure Roberts is painted a far-right conservative though. I don't care as much about the economics but I would say use both angles.

Hopefully Rehnquist will hold on a while and Roberts will out himself by writing some conservative opinions, and maybe even overturning some court precedents. That would make people, including moderate republicans, nervous and put pressure on Bush to nominate someone more moderate next time.

Thats the best you can hope for I think.