PEOPLE FOR BLOG

With as many as three Supreme Court Justices possibly stepping down in the next four years, either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will have a profound and lasting influence on the nation's highest court. And since federal judges have lifetime positions, the president's impact will last decades after he has left the White House. That is why, as TPM reports today, conservatives are bullish that a Romney Court could reverse the great advances in justice of the past century.

Liberal-leaning Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 79, and Steven Breyer, 74, are likely candidates for retirement during a Romney administration, the GOP nominee has vowed to appoint staunch conservatives, and the influential conservative legal community will make sure he follows through.

Replacing even one of the liberal justices with a conservative, legal scholars and advocates across the ideological spectrum agree, would position conservatives to scale back the social safety net and abortion rights in the near term. Over time, if a robust five-vote conservative bloc prevails on the court for years, the right would have the potential opportunity to reverse nearly a century of progressive jurisprudence.

For all those reasons, conservative legal activists anticipate that a Romney win would be the culmination of their decades-long project to remake the country's legal architecture.

The article is must-reading for learning about the vision of America that a Romney Court would impose on us. As many people know, abortion rights would almost certainly be eliminated. But also in the crosshairs are the federal government's authority to run critically important programs like Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. As the article makes clear, conservatives make no secret of their agenda.

The powers conservatives most want to limit are rooted in the Constitution's Spending and Commerce Clauses, which the Supreme Court already constrained in its decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. The Supremacy Clause could also be circumscribed with one more conservative vote, potentially limiting people's ability to sue if government assistance laws are not properly implemented.

The ACA decision revealed that there are already four votes on the Court to prevent the Taxing Clause from being used to promote regulatory goals. And though the staunchest legal conservatives hope a fifth vote might lead to the eradication or restructuring of programs like Medicare and Social Security, [conservative professor Randy] Barnett cautions that the debate over the scope of that power dates “all the way back to Alexander Hamilton.”

The far right has long bristled against the vision of the Constitution as a document designed to give the federal power robust powers to pass laws addressing national problems and protecting ordinary people from being exploited from those who are far more powerful than they are. They hearken back to an era when a different arch-conservative Court “protected” the “economic liberty” of powerless workers to “agree” to work all day every day at slave wages under horrific conditions. Their cramped vision of congressional authority would severely undermine the American people's power to use Congress address national problems that states and cities alone cannot solve.

Jamie Raskin, a senior fellow at our affiliate People For the American Way Foundation, has written about how the far right's interpretation of the Constitution is at odds with the intent of the founders, and how a robust federal government is essential to giving the American people effective power over our own economic and social life.

The far right has long awaited a complete takeover of the Supreme Court, so they could return our country to a dark time when the economically dominant were able to abuse their power over others with impunity. They have been anxiously awaiting the day when they could retake power from the American people.

That day will be soon, if Mitt Romney becomes president and fulfills his promise to populate the Supreme Court with right wing ideologues.

Rolling Stone published an interview with President Obama yesterday in which he discusses what would happen to the Supreme Court – and to the American people – if Mitt Romney wins the election and gets to fill the next Supreme Court vacancies.

When asked if Roe v. Wade would be overturned, the president responded:

I don't think there's any doubt. Governor Romney has made clear that's his position. His running mate has made this one of the central principles of his public life. Typically, a president is going to have one or two Supreme Court nominees during the course of his presidency, and we know that the current Supreme Court has at least four members who would overturn Roe v. Wade. All it takes is one more for that to happen.

President Obama also criticized Chief Justice Roberts' ruling that the Affordable Care Act, while a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power, was not constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

The truth is that if you look at the precedents dating back to the 1930s, this was clearly constitutional under the Commerce Clause. I think Justice Roberts made a decision that allowed him to preserve the law but allowed him to keep in reserve the desire, maybe, to scale back Congress' power under the Commerce Clause in future cases.

Although it was mentioned in the interview, the Court's ACA decision also limited Congress's ability to set basic program requirements in federal-state partnerships like Medicare.

If Mitt Romney fills the next vacancies on the Court, the far right Justices will be able to aggressively roll back congressional authority. It is through Congress that the American people are able to address national problems like healthcare, the environment, worker safety, and the economic safety net. And it is through Congress that the American people are most effectively able to hold corporations accountable for their actions when they harm the American people.

But it is through Mitt Romney's Supreme Court that the far right would severely weaken the power of the American people to act through Congress.

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the tragic death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila and daughter Marcia, three staff members (Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic, and Mary McEvoy) and the pilot and co-pilot on the plane that went down that awful day. I was working for Paul at the time – as the staff director of the Senate HELP Committee's Labor Subcommittee, which he chaired. I remember that morning vividly – sitting in my office, hearing the news, experiencing that moment when tragedy strikes where one's heart simply refuses to accept what the head is telling you.

Paul was my boss, my mentor – and my friend – and I miss him dearly.

He was a fighter.

He was in politics to fight for causes he believed in and for the people who didn't have representation. As he was fond of saying in his speeches:

Politics is not about money or power games, or winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about the improvement of people's lives, lessening human suffering, advancing the cause of peace and justice in our country and in the world.

And he fought for those who didn't have big money and powerful interests in their corner. In the introduction to Terry Gydesen's wonderful photo album of tribute to Paul and Sheila that sits on my desk every day as inspiration, Jeff Blodgett, who was Paul's dear friend and campaign manager, reminds us that on the day of the plane crash, the campaign was about to release a TV ad of Paul looking directly into the camera and explaining why he wanted to serve:

I don't represent the big oil companies. I don't represent the big pharmaceutical companies. I don't represent the Enrons of this world, but you know what, they already have great representation in Washington. It's the rest of the people that need it. I represent the people of Minnesota.

Paul was a dreamer.

He dreamed of a better world and that dream inspired all those around him. To this day I carry with me a button with Paul's picture and his mantra that "the future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."

We're in a huge fight right now for the causes, values and people that Paul felt so deeply about. He was a proud liberal and I was proud to work with him in the fight for a better America. He knew that you didn't always win the fights, but as he said many times: "You have to start a fight to win a fight."

So over the less than two weeks we have before these critical elections, Paul will be sitting on my shoulder as I fight for outcomes on November 6th that will give us elected officials who share Paul's vision. And I'll continue fighting – inspired by Paul's memory – for as long as it takes to achieve an America that improves people's lives, lessens human suffering and advances the cause of peace and justice at home and abroad.

Indiana Republican and Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock is making headlines with his statement during a debate about rape, pregnancy, and God's will. As Talking Points Memo reports:

Defending his stance that abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape, Mourdock explained that pregnancy resulting from nonconsensual sex is the will of God.

"I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God," Mourdock said. "And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

The GOP Senate candidate sought to contain the damage with a statement this morning:

"God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick," stated Richard Mourdock.

But no one is twisting Mourdock's words. He set out to explain why he wants the law to deny a raped woman the right to an abortion, and he did so clearly: Because he has a personal religious belief that God wants the woman to have a child.

That the woman may have a different religious belief is apparently irrelevant: Mourdock clearly believes that the law should reflect his theology, not hers. Unfortunately, that approach to governing, one which the First Amendment was adopted to prevent, is the founding principle of the religious right.

This calls to mind our affiliate People For the American Way Foundation's booklet 12 Rules For Mixing Religion and Politics, a publication designed to generate conversation on how to create and sustain a civic space reflecting our nation's Constitution and the values of respectful discourse. For instance, Rule Two states:

While it is appropriate to discuss the moral dimensions of public policy issues, religious doctrine alone is not an acceptable basis for government policy.

Because government represents all the people, not just those who share the faith of particular government officials, and because the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing religion, it is inappropriate for government policy to be based solely on religious doctrine. Debates over who speaks for God or who has a superior interpretation of scripture should not form the basis for policymaking.

This and the other rules for the road are explained in greater detail in the booklet. In a nation blessed with both democracy and a rich diversity of religious beliefs, we should not be using the law to codify our own theological positions.

To no one's surprise, the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed Mitt Romney. The endorsement is as pitiful as it is predictable.

Romney supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying. Romney opposed the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell. He signed the National Organization for Marriage's pledge to defend DOMA, put Washington DC's marriage equality law up to a popular vote, and establish a presidential commission to "investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters." Romney has promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the two major gay rights decisions of the past 20 years. And his main advisor on judicial nominations is the infamous Robert Bork, who has compared gay rights to child molestation.

But it's not just LGBT people who should be worried about the prospect of a Romney Court.

The Supreme Court justices Romney promises to nominate would ensure that our nation's highest court continues to routinely bend the law and twist logic in order to favor corporate interests. They would block environmental laws that restrain large corporations from poisoning our air and water. They would severely weaken and in some cases eliminate consumers' right to sue manufacturers of dangerous products. They would make it increasingly difficult for victims of illegal employment discrimination to have their day in court. And, of course, they would continue to game our nation's electoral system to make sure that corporate interests drown out the speech of ordinary Americans, while upholding obstacles designed to prevent those same ordinary Americans from being able to exercise their right to vote.

That's an agenda that's devastating for all Americans, not just gays and lesbians.

People For the American Way has been stressing the enormous importance of the Supreme Court in the next election, emphasizing that if Mitt Romney is elected, he has promised to nominate extreme right-wing judges who will limit our civil liberties and rescind equality measures. In a new ad, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren echoes these concerns, warning that a Senate dominated by Republicans has the potential to approve a justice that would help overturn Roe v. Wade. Warren’s opponent Scott Brown has already voiced his support for Justice Antonin Scalia, naming the ultra-conservative judge as his favorite on the Supreme Court. We cannot afford to elect candidates like Mitt Romney or Scott Brown, who are sure to nominate and confirm justices that will take us back in time and turn back the progress we have made on behalf of women’s rights, worker’s rights, voting rights, and more.

As some well know, the debate over unconstitutional wiretapping and other communications surveillance is far from over. This December the United States District Court will hear summary judgment arguments for Jewel v. NSA, a case led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against the National Security Agency and other government agencies to end that agency’s illegal program of dragnet surveillance of the American people. Filed in 2008, the case features evidence from a related 2006 case, Hepting v. AT&T, brought against AT&T by its customers, in which former AT&T employee Mark Klein testified that the company had worked with the NSA to route Internet traffic to a “secret room” accessible to the NSA.

Given the organization’s longstanding commitment to protecting civil liberties, this matter continues to be of particular concern to People For the American Way Foundation which filed an amicus brief in support of the Hepting plaintiffs in 2006 and filed a similar brief in support of the Jewel plaintiffs last Friday.

PFAWF’s most recent brief points out that the legislative history of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) makes clear that Congress deliberated on the question central to the case – whether the need for secrecy in gathering intelligence should mean that the Executive branch’s domestic electronic surveillance should be exempt from any judicial review – and found that it should not. In other words, Congress found that national security concerns do not automatically call for a simple dismissal of civil liberties concerns and entrusted to the courts a procedure to address such concerns.

The brief, written with the University of California, Berkeley Law School’s Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, states:

The government’s invocation of the state secrets privilege, in response to allegations that it unlawfully surveilled the domestic communications of millions of Americans, subverts the balance between civil liberties and the need for secrecy in litigation over government surveillance that Congress carefully crafted in FISA. Accepting the government’s state secrets claim would replace the legislative compromise embodied in FISA with a system of unrestrained administrative discretion that would let the Executive single-handedly dictate when and how it may subject the public to surveillance in the name of national security.