[The GOP & the billionaires who fund them learned their lesson.
Never again would they allow a rightwing justice to stray beyond the
rigid ideological boundaries set at that justices’ confirmation.]
[[link removed]]

HAVE BILLIONAIRES OUTFITTED JUSTICES WITH GOLDEN HANDCUFFS TO STOP
“LIBERAL DRIFT”?  
[[link removed]]


 

Thom Hartman
June 22, 2023
The Hartmann Report
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The GOP & the billionaires who fund them learned their lesson.
Never again would they allow a rightwing justice to stray beyond the
rigid ideological boundaries set at that justices’ confirmation. _

, Image by Stefan Keller from Pixabay

 

The media is interpreting the relationship between rightwing
billionaires and Supreme Court justices as good old fashioned
corruption, as if they’re trying to buy votes. But what if, instead,
it’s actually something far more insidious than that?

Billionaires Harlan Crow and Paul Singer both have had business before
the Supreme Court, but both also argue that they’ve never
specifically discussed that business with Clarence Thomas or Sam
Alito, respectively.

And Thomas and Alito, while not recusing themselves from those cases,
claim that they’re not taking into consideration the positions,
needs, or desires of their “good friends” when making decisions or
casting votes.

IF ALL THAT’S TRUE, WHY DO WE KEEP SEEING INSTANCES OF RIGHTWING
BILLIONAIRES REACHING OUT TO SUPREME COURT JUSTICES? WHY DID THE KOCH
BROTHERS REGULARLY INVITE
[[link removed]] JUSTICES
ANTONIN SCALIA AND CLARENCE THOMAS TO THEIR MANSIONS, RESORTS, AND
PRIVATE EVENTS?

The implication in the media, when commenting on ProPublica’s
blockbuster reporting, is that they’re all lying and there actually
is either a _quid pro quo_ going on, or at least a wink-and-a-nod.

But that answer is too facile to explain the behavior of these men
(it’s always men, it seems: Elena Kagan famously turned down bagels
and lox from a politically active acquaintance, saying she didn’t
want to be in their debt in even the smallest way).

They control an entire one-third branch of our federal government.
They’re not going to debase themselves like that, swapping explicit
gifts for explicit votes. (Well, maybe one out of nine might.
But _two_ out of nine? That’s statistically and historically
unlikely.)

And the private-sector kings and barons of banking, real estate, and
industry? These men, who control billions of dollars, are not going to
lower themselves to making simple bribes.

They’re not going to risk their lifestyles — second-country
passports, private jets and yachts, mansions in multiple nations, and
complete authority over vast empires of wealth and the power
associated with it — with a penny-ante bribe for a vote once in a
while.

A SIMPLER AND, I THINK, MORE COGENT ARGUMENT TO EXPLAIN THIS BEHAVIOR
IS THAT THESE BILLIONAIRES ARE FITTING THEIR TARGET JUSTICES WITH
GOLDEN HANDCUFFS.

AND THEY MUST FEEL THE NEED TO DO SO BECAUSE HISTORY SHOWS THAT
JUSTICES — ONCE THEY HAVE LIFETIME TENURE AND ARE OTHERWISE NOT
ANSWERABLE TO ANYBODY, INCLUDING VOTERS, LOBBYISTS, OR SPECIAL
INTERESTS — TEND TO BECOME MORE LIBERAL THE LONGER THEY’RE ON THE
BENCH.

Back in 1999, political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin
Quinn created
[[link removed]] the
Martin-Quinn Score, a way of measuring the ideology and ideological
changes over time of Supreme Court justices.

Looking at datasets over much of the past century, researchers using
the Martin-Quinn Score found that over time conservative justices
consistently moved out of the rigid rightwing ideological space they
occupied when put on the Court. They inevitably shifted to a more
centrist or liberal position.

As Oliver Roeder wrote for a piece at 538 titled _Supreme Court
Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older
[[link removed]]_:

“A typical justice nominated by a Republican president starts out at
age 50 as an Antonin Scalia and retires at age 80 as an Anthony
Kennedy.”

REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES EARL WARREN, WILLIAM BRENNAN, HARRY BLACKMUN,
JOHN PAUL STEVENS, SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, ANTHONY KENNEDY, AND DAVID
SOUTER WERE ALL CONSIDERED SOLID CONSERVATIVES WHEN APPOINTED TO THE
BENCH, BUT ALL JOINED THE COURT’S LIBERAL FACTION FOR MANY OR EVEN A
MAJORITY OF THEIR LIFETIME DECISIONS.

All of those justices, probably not coincidentally, joined the
Court _before_ the modern era of the Federalist Society and its
encouraging rightwing billionaires to “make friends” with
conservative justices. (Leonard Leo was part of Alito’s fishing trip
with Singer, and is in the famous picture from one of Crow’s
retreats with Clarence and Ginni Thomas.)

INTERESTINGLY, THE MARTIN-QUINN SCORES SHOW THAT WHILE CONSERVATIVE
JUSTICES LEAVE BEHIND THEIR HARD-RIGHT IDEOLOGY OVER TIME, LIBERAL
JUSTICES TEND TO STAY RIGHT WHERE THEY WERE WHEN CONFIRMED. WHAT
EXPLAINS THIS PHENOMENON?

I believe it’s that once justices have lifetime appointments and no
longer must adhere to an ideologically defined ladder to climb to
their position, they finally feel comfortable to do what’s right,
not just what the wealthy party donors or Republican presidents and
senators who gave them the job care about.

After all, America was founded as the world’s first major experiment
with what political scientists call “liberal” democracy. The
Founders and Framers, as I lay out in my new book _The Hidden History
of American Democracy: Rediscovering Humanity’s Ancient Way of
Living
[[link removed]]_,
were enthusiastic students of indigenous democracies like the Iroquois
Confederacy, seeing in it a form of government where the good of
society was consistently held above the greed or desire for power of
select individuals.

THUS, ONE COULD ARGUE, THE CORE IDEAL OF THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT WAS
SUMMARIZED IN THE FIRST THREE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION: “WE THE
PEOPLE.” THE FIRST GOAL OF A LIBERAL GOVERNMENT LIKE THE FOUNDERS
ESTABLISHED WAS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE
WHILE MAINTAINING HIGH LEVELS OF PERSONAL FREEDOM, AND OUR NATION HAS
MOVED TOWARD THAT GOAL IN FITS AND STARTS — BUT STEADILY FORWARD,
NONETHELESS — FOR OVER TWO CENTURIES.

The hardcore conservative worldview, however, rigidly embraces
hierarchy, patriarchy, and a society with an elite few at the top and
teeming masses of the working poor at the bottom. Anything that might
lift those masses up other than “individual initiative” or
inheritance — from Social Security to Medicare to unionization to
quality free public education — is vigorous opposed by
conservatives.

The hard-right conservative/libertarian worldview doesn’t make
sense. It doesn’t work in the real world. It’s only an ideology,
but it’s the ideology they learned as they climbed up through the
generally-white upper-middle-class ranks. An ideology of privilege
that’s only rarely contradicted by disaster: most wealthy people die
without ever having had a personal experience of poverty or even
struggling to pay the bills.

THUS, CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES “MOVING TO THE LEFT” ISN’T REALLY SO
MUCH OF AN IDEOLOGICAL SHIFT AS AN ABANDONMENT OF ELITE CONSERVATIVE
IDEOLOGY IN FAVOR OF AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION TO DO WHAT’S BEST
FOR THE NATION AS A WHOLE. TO MEET THE NEEDS OF _ALL_ AMERICANS,
RATHER THAN JUST THE ELITE FEW WHO ARE THE FOCUS OF CONSERVATIVE
IDEOLOGY.

That’s also why liberal judges’ Martin-Quinn scores almost never
move: they were already doing what was best for the country overall,
and so felt no need to become ideologues in either direction.

FINALLY — AND TO THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE — THIS EXPLAINS WHY
RIGHTWING BILLIONAIRES WOULD WANT TO WINE AND DINE CONSERVATIVE
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND IT IN THIS CONTEXT, IT’S
AS CLEAR AS OCCAM’S RAZOR.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that Harlan Crow really wanted to
get to know Clarence Thomas for his sparkling personality; if Thomas
were a bus driver, a physician, or even a District Court judge, Crow
would have ignored him. Ditto for Sam Alito and Paul Singer.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE POWER TO MOLD AND SHAPE THE LAW IN WAYS
THAT EITHER ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE BILLIONAIRES, FROM TAX POLICY TO
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE TO SOCIAL ISSUES THAT COMPORT WITH THE
HIERARCHICAL CONSERVATIVE WORLDVIEW.

Of course Crow, Koch, Singer — and the other billionaires we will
inevitably find involved with this — would like to keep justices,
who prioritized wealth when first put on the bench, in the same
ideologically conservative lane throughout their tenure.

FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, THE EFFORTS BY THESE AND OTHER RIGHTWING
BILLIONAIRES WHO HAVE SHARED IN WINING AND DINING CONSERVATIVE SUPREME
COURT JUSTICES OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES ARE NOT SO MUCH DIRECTED AT
SPECIFIC CASES THEY MAY HAVE BEFORE THE COURT BUT, RATHER, ARE
DESIGNED TO KEEP THOSE JUSTICES “IN THE FOLD.”

Student debt, for example, is coming up next. To screw the students
Joe Biden is trying to help will require a strong enough class
identification to ignore the desperate situation many Americans find
themselves in today. “Don’t think about those struggling people;
instead remember the private jet rides and that $200,000 fishing
trip!”

If this theory is right, these billionaires are making this investment
of time and money to prevent conservative Supreme Court justices from
becoming David Souters or Anthony Kennedys: two men who joined the
Court before this “befriending” program was organized by Leonard
Leo, _et al_ — and who thus felt free to abandon conservative
dogma once they got lifetime tenure.

JUST CONSIDER HOW CLEARLY THIS IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE PAST 70 YEARS OF
AMERICAN HISTORY. THE STORY OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FROM PREVIOUS
GENERATIONS MAKES THIS ARGUMENT OVERWHELMINGLY VIVID.

When I was a child, Earl Warren — who Dwight Eisenhower called
“that dumb sonofabitch” — became a huge wakeup call to
America’s rightwingers. As I noted
[[link removed]] a
few months ago, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower once remarked
[[link removed]],
referring to his appointees Earl Warren and William Brennan:

“I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme
Court.”

In the election of 1952, three-term California Governor Earl Warren
put his name into nomination for president at the Republican National
Convention. Four years earlier, in the presidential race of 1948,
Warren had been Thomas Dewey’s vice-presidential running mate (they
lost to Truman), and so was nationally known as a solid, reliably
conservative Republican.

He’d been a forceful law-and-order keep-the-Blacks-down District
Attorney for Alameda county, then California’s hard-assed Attorney
General (1938), then such a popular governor (1942, 1946, 1950) that
California’s then-Senator Richard Nixon endorsed him for president
on the first ballot.

THUS, WHEN EISENHOWER WON THE NOMINATION AND THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS
FIRST APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT WENT, IN 1953, TO EARL WARREN.

Warren’s credentials as a conservative Republican were impeccable,
and Eisenhower and his Vice President, Richard Nixon, both celebrated
when Warren stepped down from his governorship to join the Court.
Eisenhower accurately called him, “a man of broad experience,
professional competence, and with an unimpeachable record and
reputation for integrity.”

ONCE ON THE COURT, THOUGH, AND NO LONGER ANSWERABLE TO THE VOTERS OR
ANY OTHER POLITICAL PRESSURE GROUP, EARL WARREN FELT HE COULD DO AS
HIS CONSCIENCE — RATHER THAN HIS PARTY — GUIDED HIM. HIS FIRST
TRULY CONSEQUENTIAL DECISION AS CHIEF JUSTICE WAS 1954’S _BROWN V
BOARD_, WHICH OUTLAWED RACIALLY SEGREGATED PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Furious, oil baron Fred Koch helped
[[link removed]] the
John Birch Society fund “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards across
the United States.

[[link removed]]

Image from  [link removed]

BUT EARL WARREN WAS UNFAZED. HIS INDEPENDENCE WAS INTACT.

_Brown _was followed by his pulling together Court majorities to:

— legalize birth control and recognize the never-before defined
“right to privacy” in the _Griswold_ decision,
— eliminate prayer in public schools (_Engel v Vitale_),
— define the right to refuse to incriminate oneself (_Miranda_),
— put into law the right to have a free defense lawyer (_Gideon v
Wainwright_),
— strike down laws against interracial marriage (_Loving v
Virginia_),
— and end a form of extreme Southern gerrymandering by requiring all
congressional and state legislative districts be of the same
population (“one man, one vote” in _Reynolds v
Sims_ and _Wesbury v Sanders_).

EARL WARREN, IN OTHER WORDS, BEGAN DOING WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS THE RIGHT
THING FOR THE NATION AS A WHOLE, RATHER THAN JUST DOING WHAT
EISENHOWER’S MORBIDLY RICH REPUBLICAN DONORS WANTED AND, FRANKLY,
EXPECTED.

The same happened with William J. Brennan, a conservative and staunch
Catholic who was confirmed by every Republican in the Senate except
one. Brennan had never been a politician, but his judicial record made
Eisenhower certain he’d rule along conservative lines.

His record was so conservative, in fact, that the _National Liberal
League_, then the nation’s leading progressive group,
vigorously opposed [[link removed]] his
nomination. Instead, Brennan became one of the most outspoken liberals
in the history of the Court, once he got lifetime tenure.

And it kept happening.

BILLIONAIRE REPUBLICAN DONORS WERE BURNED AGAIN WHEN JERRY FORD
NOMINATED JOHN PAUL STEVENS TO THE COURT IN 1975.

Stevens was a lifelong Republican; was functionally the lead
prosecutor for the _Greenberg Commission_ which removed two corrupt
justices from the Illinois Supreme Court; voted as an Appeals Court
judge to reinstate capital punishment and against affirmative action;
and was seen as so business-friendly that the former president
of _Bell & Howell_, then-Republican US Senator Charles H. Percy,
proudly put his name into nomination for the high court.

BUT ONCE STEVENS EXPERIENCED THE “INDEPENDENT SPIRIT” OF LIFETIME
TENURE THAT HAMILTON REFERENCED
[[link removed]] IN
FEDERALIST 78, THIS HARD-CORE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN BECAME ONE OF
THE COURT’S MOST OUTSPOKEN LIBERALS.

His dissent in 
[[link removed]]_Citizens
United is must-reading
[[link removed]]_ today as he
predicted all the corruption we’ve since seen; he wrote the opinion
in _Wallace v. Jaffree _striking down school prayer; and he voted to
legalize pornography under the rubric of free speech and the First
Amendment.

He also wrote the majority opinion in _Chevron v NRDC_ which
established the _Chevron deference_ which — as I noted last 
[[link removed]]month —
the current Supreme Court appears prepared to strike down as part of
the billionaire campaign against regulatory agencies.

Stevens authored the main dissent in Scalia’s “guns for
everybody” _Heller _decision, and his dissent in 2000 _Bush v
Gore_ — where Clarence Thomas’s tie-breaking vote handed the
presidency to George W. Bush, even though Al Gore had won a
half-million more votes and the Florida Supreme Court-mandated recount
was in mid-stride — was absolutely scathing. He wrote:

“Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of
the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the
loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge
as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

FINALLY, DAVID SOUTER WAS NOMINATED BY GEORGE HW BUSH. HE’D BEEN A
LAW-AND-ORDER PROSECUTOR WHO WAS
[[link removed]] “NOTED FOR HIS TOUGH
SENTENCING,” AND ROSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE SOLID RED STATE OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE.

That state’s Republican governor, John Sununu, assured Bush that
Souter would be a “home run” for conservatives. It didn’t turn
out that way, with his pro-choice vote in _Planned Parenthood v
Casey_ and his joining Stevens in opposing the Court’s handing the
2000 election to George W. Bush.

REPUBLICANS — AND THE RIGHTWING BILLIONAIRES WHO FUND THEM —
LEARNED THEIR LESSON, BY THIS THEORY. NEVER AGAIN WOULD THEY ALLOW A
RIGHTWING JUSTICE TO STRAY BEYOND THE RIGID IDEOLOGICAL BOUNDARIES SET
AT THAT JUSTICES’ CONFIRMATION.

But they didn’t need to use threats or bribes or any sort of even
remotely explicit _quid pro quo_.

INSTEAD, THEY’D USE PEER/FRIEND PRESSURE — ONE OF THE SINGLE MOST
POWERFUL SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL FORCES TO WHICH HUMANS ARE VULNERABLE
— TO CONTROL THEIR FUTURE BEHAVIOR.

The carrot instead of the stick. The velvet glove instead of the steel
fist. The experience of breathtaking wealth and the warm embrace of
powerful people.

LEONARD LEO AND HIS BILLIONAIRE FUNDERS HAVE PUT AN ENORMOUS AND
LONG-TERM EFFORT INTO THIS PROJECT, AND IT APPEARS TO BE WORKING. FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN 240 YEARS OF AMERICAN HISTORY, NONE OF THE
CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES IN THE PAST 20 YEARS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY STRAYED
FROM THEIR IDEOLOGICAL LANE.

This is also why it’s a safe bet that — as ProPublica and other
reporting groups dig into the lives of the other conservatives on the
Court — we’ll similarly find outreach from other rightwing
billionaires and CEOs of giant corporations to the rest of them, all
“purely in the spirit of friendship.”

AND 100% OF THOSE “FRIENDS,” IF MY THEORY IS RIGHT, WILL BE
BILLIONAIRES WHO ARE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN REPUBLICAN IDEOLOGY AND
POLITICS, AND REGULARLY HAVE BUSINESS OR CAUSES THEY CARE ABOUT BEFORE
THE COURT. JUST LIKE KOCH, CROW, AND SINGER.

This isn’t a hobby and these men aren’t friends. This is the way
leaders in a cult behave to keep their most valuable cult members
within the fold.

_“Make them feel special.”_

Thomas and Alito can continue to protest that their “good friends”
aren’t trying to influence decisions in any specific
case, publishing
[[link removed]] editorials
in _The Wall Street Journal_ and pathetically pleading their cases
before rightwing groups.

BUT THEY HAVE NO DEFENSE AGAINST THE ARGUMENT THAT A PRINCIPLE GOAL OF
THE RIGHTWING BILLIONAIRES AND THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY’S CONSTANT
ATTENTION TO THESE JUSTICES IS TO QUITE SIMPLY KEEP THEM FOCUSED ON
THE CONCERNS AND NEEDS OF THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS AND THE CORPORATIONS
THAT MADE THEM RICH.

To make them feel a stronger affiliation to a class of people they
were not born into and could never otherwise aspire to. Because then,
no matter the details of the case, they will rule the right way.

After all, if the oligarchs lose their conservative defenders on the
Supreme Court, America could revert back to democracy that first and
foremost serves the needs of our nation’s working people, like
before the Reagan revolution.

The middle-class might recover, raising the cost of labor, and CEOs
might have to start paying their income taxes and running their
businesses in a way that serves the community above their own greed.

And that, rightwing billionaires will tell you, is something they can
never allow to happen.

_Thom Hartmann, one of America’s leading public intellectuals and
the country’s #1 progressive talk show host, writes fresh content
six days a week. The Monday-Friday “Daily Take” articles are free
to all, while paid subscribers receive a Saturday summary of the
week’s news and, on Sunday, a chapter excerpt from one of his
books._

_Discover the latest views and opinions from US politics and other
fascinating subjects, too, including cutting-edge science reports. 
Subscribe to get full access to the newsletter and website
[[link removed]]. Never miss an update._

* Supreme Court
[[link removed]]
* Billionaires
[[link removed]]
* corruption
[[link removed]]
* Republican Party
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]