An urgent call to friends to the left of us: consider a McCain set of appointments to the Supreme Court or the federal courts

We have been hearing how this is the most important election, and so on. Well, we also heard that in the last two. We need some qualification for this claim. We have it in the Supreme Court. The Court has voted very narrowly on abortion issues recently, by a 5-4 margin. And with J.P. Stevens at 88 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 75, both could likely leave the court under the next president.

If there is any reason to get a leftist to put Green, anti-electoral, or other anti-vote-for-the-Democrats impulses on hold this year, it is the issue of who will be president, and thus able to select replacements for Stevens or Ginsburg. Friends don't let friends siphon votes from the Dem, a la Nader in '00.
Sure, the Democrats are imperfect, and tied to corporate interests, but consider the following.

We easily face an over-turning of Roe v. Wade.
But this is not the only issue. Republicans like to spur Democrats and progressives as supporting activist judiciary decisions. This is the idea that adopting a loose interpretation of the Constitution allows for passing decisions that please progressives, e.g., the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide for personal autonomy, and therefore provide for the right to decide to opt to have an abortion. This kind of interpretation and justice is what undergirds Brown v. Board of Topeka, Kansas.
Yet, while they [Republicans/conservatives] target us for loose interpretations of the Constitution, they opt for the same, when it suits their ideological interests.

And, we progressives should be calling attention to the conservatives' own philosophy: activist conservativism. This allows for activist court rulings that further a conservative agenda.
What have been the goals of activist conservativism?
As Jeffrey Rosen wrote in "McJustice": Liberals' long-feared judicial apocalypse is nigh," the latest hard copy issue of "The New Republic,"

So let's assume that McCain gets to appoint at least one activist conservative to the bench. How would America and the law be transformed? The most significant effect of a McCain Court could come in areas pitting the Court against federal regulations passed by Congress. Before the crash of 2008, the previous two most serious depressions in U.S. history--in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries--triggered populist economic regulations by Congress and the states to protect citizens from the excesses of industrial capitalism. In both eras, conservative Supreme Court majorities struck down those regulations--from minimum-wage laws to parts of the New Deal--as an affront to property rights and limits on federal power. This triggered a political backlash from Americans convinced that the decisions were bad for the country.
So let's assume that McCain gets to appoint at least one activist conservative to the bench. How would America and the law be transformed? The most significant effect of a McCain Court could come in areas pitting the Court against federal regulations passed by Congress. Before the crash of 2008, the previous two most serious depressions in U.S. history--in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries--triggered populist economic regulations by Congress and the states to protect citizens from the excesses of industrial capitalism. In both eras, conservative Supreme Court majorities struck down those regulations--from minimum-wage laws to parts of the New Deal--as an affront to property rights and limits on federal power. This triggered a political backlash from Americans convinced that the decisions were bad for the country.

The Times in October 29's edition, called attention to the conservative majority of judge on the appeals and circuit courts, due to Bush, Bush I, Reagan.

See Charlie Savage's article, "Appeals Courts Pushed to Right by Bush Choices," in "The New York Times," October 29, 2008.

"After a group of doctors challenged a South Dakota law forcing them to inform women that abortions “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being” — using exactly that language — President Bush’s appointees to the federal appeals courts took control,"

A federal trial judge, stating that whether a fetus is human life is a matter of debate, had blocked the state from enforcing the 2005 law as a likely violation of doctors’ First Amendment rights. And an appeals court panel had upheld the injunction.

But this past June, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7 to 4 to overrule those decisions and allow the statute to take immediate effect. The majority argued that it is objectively true that human life begins at conception, and that the state can force doctors to say so.

Mr. Bush had appointed six of the seven judges in the conservative majority. His administration has transformed the nation’s federal appeals courts, advancing a conservative legal revolution that began nearly three decades ago under President Ronald Reagan.

Due to the power of the appeals courts, they have inveighed on issues, before cases reached the Supreme Court. . . . . Bush openly pandered to the ideological judicial conservative organization, the Federalist Society:

On Oct. 6, Mr. Bush pointed with pride to his record at a conference sponsored by the Cincinnati chapter of the Federalist Society, the elite network for the conservative legal movement. He noted that he had appointed more than a third of the federal judiciary expected to be serving when he leaves office, a lifetime-tenured force that will influence society for decades and that represents one of his most enduring accomplishments. While a two-term president typically leaves his stamp on the appeals courts — Bill Clinton appointed 65 judges, Mr. Bush 61 — Mr. Bush’s judges were among the youngest ever nominated and are poised to have an unusually strong impact.

They have arrived at a time when the appeals courts, which decide tens of thousands of cases a year, are increasingly getting the last word. While the Supreme Court gets far more attention, in recent terms it has reviewed only about 75 cases a year — half what it considered a generation ago. And Mr. Bush’s appointees have found allies in like-minded judges named by Mr. Bush’s father and Reagan.

The article also gives you names of people that might end up on the Supreme Court, should John McCain reach the presidency.

So, listen, leftists, I would have preferred Kucinich and so on and so on . . . but consider how much worse America could be with a 1 or 2 liberal Supreme Court or a more solidly Republican judiciary.

Economics and tonight's debate ... liveblogging

McCain?: he is merely offering the same Gilded Age, late nineteenth century inflexible orthodoxy, of no regulation. This is not reform, this is not change; this is a commitment to the kind of policies that got the economy into the current crisis.
No, this is not a matter of isolated corruption (contrary to McSame's claims tonight).

No, this is not the time to make solitary scapegoats, as New York's "Daily News" did today, spotlighting Richard Fuld, former Lehman Brothers CEO. This is not a matter of one man's errors. This is a systemic crisis. The deregulation mentality needs to be reversed. Obama properly targeted McCain for supporting the deregulatory trend that led to this financial crisis.

ECONOMISTS FOR OBAMA
Obama is creaming McCain tonight. Obama is speaking to the crisis. McCain is just mouthing the same cliches of traditional free market economics. No analysis of the contemporary economic crisis.
No wonder economists are supporting Barack Obama over John McCain by a two-to-one margin. (See the site, "Economists for Obama.")
The list of major economists supporting Obama --these are the early supporters. This is a list of economists/supporters as of June 3, 2008.

BUFFET FOR OBAMA?
Yep, Warren Buffett --that's not Jimmy "Margaritaville" Buffett. Buffett, the famed Berkshire Hathaway investor, is supporting Obama.
(See the news about Buffett's May 19 endorsement.)
So, don't believe the right wing radio delusional hype. Obama is not a socialist; he will not institute socialism. Why would Wall Street people such as Buffet supporting Obama if he were a socialist?!
Recall Buffett's statement, "Obama could run a business."

Democrats to raise McCain associations to Keating and others

From Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic Monthly:

Democrats To Raise McCain Associations To Keating, Others

05 Oct 2008 06:40 pm
Democratic surrogates say they've been given the go-ahead from the Obama campaign to mention John McCain's associations with S&L kingpin Charles Keating and other historically tarnished creatures when asked about Obama's connection to ex-Weatherman William Ayers.

A senior Democrat who has had contact with Obama's high command points to Democratic strategist Paul Begala's comments on this morning's Meet the Press.

Begala noted that McCain once "sat on the board of a very right wing organization," the U.S. Council for World Freedom, led by a retired Army Maj. General named John Singlaub. The Anti-Defamation League allegedly called the CWF's parent organization a gathering place for racists and anti-Semites.

Said Begala: "Now, that's not John McCain. I don't think he is that. But, but, you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain's record better than Governor Palin, and he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face."

Other potential negative associations for McCain are his long-time South Carolina consultant, Richard Quinn, a publisher of a Southern heritage magazine, and John Hagee, a pastor whose endorsement McCain solicited and later rejected.

OBAMA PREPARED FOR MCCAIN TO GET DIRTY: {from Ron Chusid at Liberal Values}
**Check out Obama camp's video at right.}**
With McCain on the wrong side of the issues and trailing badly in the polls, he is prepared to go even more negative in the hopes of pulling out a victory in November. This will include raising Obama’s ties to Ayers and Rezko even though these smears have previously been debunked.

Having learned from seeing such attacks used against John Kerry, Obama is responding by launching a preemptive attack with this ad:

“Three quarters of a million jobs lost this year. Our financial system in turmoil. And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy. No wonder his campaign wants to change the subject.

“Turn the page on the financial crisis by launching dishonorable, dishonest ‘assaults’ against Barack Obama. Struggling families can’t turn the page on this economy, and we can’t afford another president who is this out of touch.”

In addition to the ad, Obama has given surrogates an ok to go after McCain for his association to Charles Keating and involvement in the Keating 5 Scandal. Marc Ambinder notes other associations which might be harmful to McCain:

A senior Democrat who has had contact with Obama’s high command points to Democratic strategist Paul Begala’s comments on this morning’s Meet the Press.

Begala noted that McCain once “sat on the board of a very right wing organization,” the U.S. Council for World Freedom, led by a retired Army Maj. General named John Singlaub. The Anti-Defamation League allegedly called the CWF’s parent organization a gathering place for racists and anti-Semites.

Said Begala: “Now, that’s not John McCain. I don’t think he is that. But, but, you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin, and he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.”

Other potential negative associations for McCain are his long-time South Carolina consultant, Richard Quinn, a publisher of a Southern heritage magazine, and John Hagee, a pastor whose endorsement McCain solicited and later rejected.

Obama is also counterattacking on the stump:

Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday charged that Sen. John McCain’s campaign is launching “Swift boat-style attacks” on him instead of addressing the country’s problems.

“Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that they can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They’d rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up,” Obama said at an event in Asheville, North Carolina.

“That’s what you do when you’re out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time,” he said.

The comments come a day after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, claimed that Obama associated “with terrorists who targeted our own country.”

In return the Republicans are searching out yet more associations to use to smear Obama. Nate Silver compares this strategy to that of a football team which must resort to desperate measures despite the fact that odds are against them working:

It is a sad denouement for what was one to be a high-minded campaign focused around themes of honor and reform (themes that were resuscitated briefly during the Republican Convention), possibly accompanied by McCain’s taking a one-term pledge. It is also, however, Mr. McCain’s strategists would seem to have concluded, their only remaining hope.

I am not here to dispute that this is McCain’s best strategy — in the same way that an onside kick is a team’s best strategy when it trails late in the game with no timeouts left. But like the onside kick, it is fairly unlikely to work.

The problem for McCain is that resorting to this type of attack further damages the impression that McCain is different from other Republicans. Just as dirty attacks from Hillary Clinton backfired and helped Obama win the nomination, such dirty attacks from McCain will further demonstrate to voters that change is needed in politics, leading more independents to back Obama. Even Hillary Clinton was careful about using attacks based upon Rezko and Ayers, leaving much of this to the media. If less offensive attacks by Clinton backfired against her, there is a far greater chance that these attacks will harm McCain more than they will harm Obama.

Having announced to the media that this is his strategy will make it even more likely to succeed, and raises further questions as to the competence of McCain’s campaign. In recent years Republicans have been incompetent at governing but highly skilled at launching Swift Boat attacks. Currently McCain appears to be incompetent at both matters of public policy as well as at launching Republican smears despite turning to Karl Rove staffers.
AND THERE'S MORE {from daily KOS}

From The Coors Connection by Russ Bellant

When the Reagan Administration began organizing the Nicaraguan Contras in 1981, allied but nominally private groups were formed to build support for the Contra plans.

One of those groups, formed shortly after the first Reagan inauguration, was the US Council for World Freedom, headed by Major General John Singlaub. The USCWF quickly became the US branch of the World Anti-Communist League. The USCWF began building support for the Reagan policy of aiding not only the Nicaraguan Contras but RENAMO and UNITA in southern Africa and rightist Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan. Singlaub informed CIA director William Casey and NSC staff of his actions and operated with their consent if not under their direct influence.

One of the early USCWF financial backers was Joe Coors, according to two former USCWF treasurers. Coors shared Reagan's enthusiasm for the Contras despite early indications of the unsavory background of certain Contra leaders and reliable reports of Contra acts of brutality. The Contras were originally known as the 15th of September Legion. Their earliest training came from Argentinean military intelligence, which ran death squads in that country and sponsored a Latin American conference of death squad leaders in 1980. That death squad network was also the Latin American branch on WACL. In 1982, Argentinean intelligence worked with Moon's Unification Church and fugitive Nazi Klaus Barbie to establish a Nazi-style state in Bolivia.

Honestly, if they try to hang Ayers around Obama, McCain, true or not, has a history of associating with ultra-right wing racists and paranoid fascist freaks.

UPDATE: Some have raised a point, one eloquently, on my comments regarding knowing McCain is racist, knowing the same part of the country etc. I just want to emphasize I know the type. I am not implicating everyone. I just know the type who would not be appalled by any of the following, (courtesy of FeastOr)

"I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live."
"At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt."
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."
"As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
"..... Now, tell me, where's that fantastic gorilla?"

Projected McCain claims in debate

Democracy Arsenal predicted 10claims that John McCain would make in the September 26 debate at Ole Miss (the University of Mississippi).
THE SHORT VERSION OF THE DEMOCRACY ARSENAL PREDICTIONS:
10 Claims John McCain will make in tonight's debate
Posted by Max Bergmann

Here are ten claims to watch for from John McCain tonight:

Claim 1: McCain will say his foreign policy is different from that of George W. Bush. Reality: On the critical issues, ranging from advocating the invasion of Iraq only days after 9/11 to declaring premature victory in Afghanistan, to saber rattling on Iran and refusing to use tough diplomacy, John McCain's policies are in lock step with those of George W. Bush.

Claim 2: John McCain will tout his judgment, saying he hates war. Reality: John McCain has taken a dangerously aggressive approach to foreign policy advocating attacking six different countries in the last eight years. Moreover, McCain retains many of the same Neocon advisors who pushed for the war in Iraq in the first place.

Claim 3: McCain will say he has long been a critic of the war in Iraq. Reality: McCain was an early supporter of the Iraq War, linking Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. He supported the Rumsfeld strategy of going with a minimal number of troops and said the war would be "easy." He continued to argue for staying the course until 2006.

Claim 4: McCain will take credit for the "surge" and argue that the troop increase is responsible for the entire decline in violence and that as a result we have succeeded. Reality: Military leaders have acknowledged that there were numerous reasons for the reduction in violence including the Anbar Awakening and political engagement with Muqtada al-Sadr. In fact, McCain confused the sequence of events in Iraq arguing that the troop increase caused the Anbar Awakening, even though the Anbar Awakening came first. Moreover, General Petraeus has warned that it is too early to declare victory as John McCain and his allies are doing.

Claim 5: McCain will say he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reality: McCain has continued to make Iraq the number one priority and has not explained how he will keep large troop levels in Iraq while meeting the requirements in Afghanistan and elsewhere laid out by military commander and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He has shown little interest in Afghanistan saying we can just "muddle through" in 2003 and declaring victory in 2005. In fact, McCain had no policy on Afghanistan until July 15, 2008 and Afghanistan did not come up once in all of the major speeches during the Republican National Convention. Meanwhile, Barack Obama and progressives have been sounding the alarm for years.

Claim 6: McCain will say he will get Osama Bin Laden and go after Al Qaeda. Reality: John McCain was a strong early supporter of the Iraq war - a war that resulted in assets and focus being pulled away from the hunt for Bin Laden and Afghanistan. While Obama has supported going after high-value targets in al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan, McCain has criticized Obama for a position that has now become official U.S. policy.

Claim 7: McCain will cite his response to the crisis in Georgia as evidence of good judgment. Reality: McCain recklessly issued bellicose statements without waiting for all the facts, while Barack Obama, other world leaders, and even President Bush took a more measured approach. McCain then went on to claim that "we are all Georgians." In fact, McCain has had a dangerous policy towards Russia for some time, proposing to kick them out of the G8 - a policy that would preclude any cooperation on critical issues such as nonproliferation.

Claim 8: McCain will say that talking to Iran is weak and naive. Reality: There is a bipartisan consensus on the need to talk to Iran. Five secretaries of state including Henry Kissinger and Jim Baker all agreed recently that we have to talk to them directly. Obama's plan calls for tough direct diplomacy in combination with sanctions and other pressures. McCain's plan of refusing to talk is the same policy that George Bush pursued until very recently - a policy that has failed and that if continued will one day force the U.S. to make a no-win decision between attacking Iran or allowing it to attain a nuclear weapons capability.

Claim 9: McCain will say he can work effectively with our allies. Reality: John McCain has a long history of belligerence and heated rhetoric towards our allies. In the run up to the Iraq War he called France and Germany "vacuous and posturing" and referred to them as our "adversaries." Recently he said he might not meet with Spain's Prime Minister and on top of that he is quite unpopular internationally.

Claim 10: McCain will say he will cut wasteful defense spending. Reality: McCain has been all over the map on defense spending. His plan to add about 200,000 ground troops to the military would cost $25 billion a year. Meanwhile, in his budget plan released in July he promised to cut $160 billion from the budget by opposing the Future Combat System, yet he now criticizes Obama's promise to cut spending on that same program. See the data after the jump.

Excellent chart: McCain beholden to Big Oil contributors

Excellent chart detailing the Big Oil money contributions to the John McCain. Scroll to the bottom to click on the chart and find oil corporation contributions to McCain's presidential campaign.
It comes from Oil Change USA.

No wonder he's a one note Johnny with a determinist explanation for our energy woes: Just let us drill more. This is why many of us call him "John McSame," continuing the pro-big oil policies of Bush-Cheney.