David Offutt

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - George Santayana

 

The Reactionary

 U. S. Supreme Court

 

 

 

January 6, 2006

El Dorado News-Times

El Dorado, AR 71730

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin confirmation hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 9. Because the present administration’s appointments and policies have reflected almost solely the positions of the extreme right, the administration has incorrectly been described as “radical.” We probably should get our terminology correct since we are about to determine the direction of our Supreme Court - and our country - for the next generation or two. The correct description of the Bush - Cheney and Sen. Bill Frist - Rep. Tom Delay Republican Party is “reactionary.”

 

The terms for our various ideologies largely derive from the French Revolution, and, very briefly, here are some generalized descriptions:

 

1. RADICALS (Extreme Left) – Completely replace the old system for something completely new

2. LIBERALS (Just Left of Center) – Make some changes using new methods, but keeping only those that work

3. MODERATES (Center) – Favor little or no change

4. CONSERVATIVES (Just Right of Center) – Make some changes, but use only tried and tested methods

5. REACTIONARIES (Extreme Right) – Undo changes and return to the “Good Old Days”

 

Historically, there have been so few extremists on the left or right in the U. S. and their viewpoints are so alien to what our country has been all about, they have not been represented on the Supreme Court. That is - until the last twenty years. Dwight Eisenhower even infuriated his own Republican Party by expressing the idea that the Court should be evenly divided and should represent each third of Americans who were

liberals, moderates, or conservatives. Most decisions are generally

 

made with large majority votes.  However, on controversial issues that may be decided by a 5 to 4 vote, it should be necessary for one side to persuade at least two other justices to join them to reach a fair and reasonable verdict.

 

Hopefully, the following will provide some idea as to what Eisenhower meant by a balanced U. S. Supreme Court: 

 

1. RADICALS: None

2. LIBERALS: (1) William Brennan 1956-1990, (2) William O. Douglas 1939-1975, and (3) Thurgood Marshall 1967-1991

3. MODERATES: (1) Stephen Breyer 1994-?, (2) Lewis Powell 1972-1987, and David Souter 1990-?

4. CONSERVATIVES: (1) Warren Burger 1969-1986, (2) Anthony Kennedy 1988-?, and (3) Sandra Day O’Conner 1981-2006?

5. REACTIONARIES: None

 

The Neo-Cons, the “Haves and Have-Mores,” and the religious political extremists are the reactionaries who have taken over control of the national Republican Party. They currently dominate the executive and legislative branches of our government, and they are now dangerously close to doing the same with the judicial branch. They are hoping to get enough extreme right-wing judges on the federal courts to gain consistent rulings in favor of corporate interests and a concentration of power in the executive branch.

 

It’s not just the last part of the 19^th century they want to return to. That was the time before national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, and forests got in the way of commercial development; before labor unions made possible a vast middle class, which took away a small portion of profits from the very wealthy; before income taxes (you notice that no one ever suggests lowering payroll taxes – which is how the middle class keeps the country functioning); before there were pure food and drug laws to protect the consumer; and before social security provided a safety net.

 

Actually, they are also reacting against just about everything that has happened since the death of John F. Kennedy in November 1963. The list is virtually endless: Medicare for retirees, Medicaid for the needy, integration of the schools, civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights (which includes Roe v. Wade), rights of the disabled, the Environmental Protection Agency, the reapportionment resulting from the “one man – one vote” ruling requiring House districts to be of equal populations, the War  Powers Resolution  (to limit presidential wars –because of Nixon), and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (to limit presidential domestic spying – because of Nixon).

 

There is not one of the above cultural, social, and political changes the reactionaries would not get rid of without hesitation – if they were able to! As diverse as the above changes are, there are probably two things

that have upset these reactionaries and have united them more than

anything else: (1) The Anti-Vietnam War Movement that gave us the Hippies, and (2) the Senate Watergate Hearings which prevented Richard Nixon from establishing an imperial presidency. They have been able to get elected to national offices by appealing to voters who agree with them on only one or two issues. The courts have been the primary obstacle to their achieving their goals, and they now see a major opportunity to finally succeed. 

 

Though one can quibble over degrees or leanings, here is basically how the U. S. Supreme Court stacks up today and, potentially, tomorrow - it leans to the Right by 5 to 4:

 

1. RADICALS: None

2. LIBERALS: None

3. MODERATES: (1) Stephen Breyer, (2) Ruth Bader Ginsberg, (3) David Souter, (4) John Paul Stevens

4. CONSERVATIVES: (1) Anthony Kennedy (2) Sandra Day O’Conner – RETIRING

5. REACTIONARIES: (1) John Roberts – PROBABLY, (2) Antonin Scalia, (3) Clarence Thomas (4) Samuel Alito - NOMINATED

 

The true liberals are long gone. All but two justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. Bill Clinton’s appointments of Breyer and Ginsberg disappointed most liberals. However, Clinton had to deal with an extremely hostile Republican Senate, and the judiciary committee was headed by Orrin Hatch, an extreme right-winger. When Sen. Hatch suggested that those two left-leaning moderates could be easily approved, Clinton agreed. Many people refer to the four moderates on the Court as liberals, but that’s because they are obviously to the left of the other five! Essentially, one out of every three American citizens has no one representing his or her viewpoint on the Court.

 

Last year, Dubya replaced the late reactionary Chief Justice William Rehnquist with John Roberts, who is expected to be as equally reactionary, if not more so. Time will tell. To replace the retiring Justice O’Conner, Bush 43 attempted a stealth nominee that would clearly be an extreme right-wing lackey, Harriet Miers. Poppy Bush had done it successfully with the unknown Clarence Thomas. This time, the right-wing extremists who dominate the Senate would have none of it. They wanted a certifiable reactionary who had a track record that would assure them he could be trusted to do their bidding. Consequently, Dubya has seemingly given them what they wanted.

 

If Samuel Alito is confirmed, Justice Anthony Kennedy will become possibly the most important person in America. The four justices on the extreme right will expect him to join them in turning the clock back. The four in the middle will hope he won’t do it. And as the Anthony Kennedy Court goes, so goes our nation.

 

SCROLL DOWN FOR GRAPHICS: