RSN: FOCUS: Laurence H. Tribe and Nancy Gertner | The Supreme Court Isn't Well. The Only Hope for a Cure Is More Justices.

 

 

10 December 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

THE BENEFITS AND PERILS OF YEAR-END FUNDRAISING — There’s a perception on the part of many of our Reader-Supporters that December’s year end fundraising provides a windfall of income for the organization. In fact we normally see an increase of about 30% over our monthly average. The problem is that people stop donating in November in anticipation of the “year end push” and don’t donate in January because we don’t need it because we just got so much in December. So in reality year end fundraising is largely a wash. We don’t really make a dent in our budget deficit. December is not what it’s cracked up to be. The stakes are high, help out. In solidarity.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

FOCUS: Laurence H. Tribe and Nancy Gertner | The Supreme Court Isn't Well. The Only Hope for a Cure Is More Justices.
Laurence H. Tribe and Nancy Gertner, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "We now believe that Congress must expand the size of the Supreme Court and do so as soon as possible. We did not come to this conclusion lightly."

We now believe that Congress must expand the size of the Supreme Court and do so as soon as possible. We did not come to this conclusion lightly.

One of us is a constitutional law scholar and frequent advocate before the Supreme Court, the other a federal judge for 17 years. After serving on the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court over eight months, hearing multiple witnesses, reading draft upon draft of the final report issued this week, our views have evolved. We started out leaning toward term limits for Supreme Court justices but against court expansion and ended up doubtful about term limits but in favor of expanding the size of the court.

We listened carefully to the views of commissioners who disagreed. Indeed, the process was a model for how people with deeply diverging perspectives can listen to one another respectfully and revise their views through genuine dialogue. We voted to submit the final report to President Biden not because we agreed with all of it — we did not — but because it accurately reflects the complexity of the issue and that diversity of views. There has never been so comprehensive and careful a study of ways to reform the Supreme Court, the history and legality of various potential reforms, and the pluses and minuses of each. This report will be of value well beyond today’s debates.

But make no mistake: In voting to submit the report to the president neither of us cast a vote of confidence in the Supreme Court itself. Sadly, we no longer have that confidence, given three things: first, the dubious legitimacy of the way some justices were appointed; second, what Justice Sonia Sotomayor rightly called the “stench” of politics hovering over this court’s deliberations about the most contentious issues; and third, the anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian direction of this court’s decisions about matters such as voting rights, gerrymandering and the corrupting effects of dark money.

Those judicial decisions haven’t been just wrong; they put the court — and, more important, our entire system of government — on a one-way trip from a defective but still hopeful democracy toward a system in which the few corruptly govern the many, something between autocracy and oligarchy. Instead of serving as a guardrail against going over that cliff, our Supreme Court has become an all-too-willing accomplice in that disaster.

Worse, measures the court has enabled will fundamentally change the court and the law for decades. They operate to entrench the power of one political party: constricting the vote, denying fair access to the ballot to people of color and other minorities, and allowing legislative district lines to be drawn that exacerbate demographic differences. As a result, the usual ebb and flow that once tended to occur with succeeding elections is stalling. A Supreme Court that has been effectively packed by one party will remain packed into the indefinite future, with serious consequences to our democracy. This is a uniquely perilous moment that demands a unique response.

None of the reforms that have been proposed precisely fit the problem that needs remedying. Term limits cannot be implemented in time to change the court’s self-reinforcing trajectory. And while much can be said in favor of the narrower repairs the commission addressed — such as increasing the transparency of the court’s proceedings, reducing its discretion over its docket or imposing constraints on its use of emergency procedures (“the shadow docket”) — none is adequate.

Offsetting the way the court has been “packed” in an antidemocratic direction with added appointments leaning the other way is the most significant clearly constitutional step that could be taken quickly. Of course, there is no guarantee that new justices would change the destructive direction of judicial doctrine we have identified; respect for judicial independence makes that impossible. Of course, successive presidents might expand the court further, absent an unattainable constitutional amendment fixing its size at a number such as 13. But the costs are worth the benefits.

Though fellow commissioners and others have voiced concern about the impact that a report implicitly criticizing the Supreme Court might have on judicial independence and thus judicial legitimacy, we do not share that concern. Far worse are the dangers that flow from ignoring the court’s real problems — of pretending conditions have not changed; of insisting improper efforts to manipulate the court’s membership have not taken place; of looking the other way when the court seeks to undo decades of precedent relied on by half the population to shape their lives just because, given the new majority, it has the votes.

Put simply: Judicial independence is necessary for judicial legitimacy but not sufficient. And judicial independence does not mean judicial impunity, the illusion of neutrality in the face of oppression, or a surface appearance of fairness that barely conceals the ugly reality of partisan manipulation.

Hand-wringing over the court’s legitimacy misses a larger issue: the legitimacy of what our union is becoming. To us, that spells a compelling need to signal that all is not well with the court, and that even if expanding it to combat what it has become would temporarily shake its authority, that risk is worth taking.

READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

 

Secretive Group Is Major Supporter of Term Limits : Election: Organization, which has ties to Libertarian movement, has given $678,000 to promote Prop. 164.

BY DAN MORAIN AND JAMES BORNEMEIER

OCT. 28, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

SACRAMENTO — 

More than 40% of the funds behind California’s proposition to limit congressional terms is coming from a secretive group in Washington that has ties to major figures in the Libertarian movement.

The organization, U.S. Term Limits, has spent $678,000 in California so far, including $455,000 in the past nine days, to push Proposition 164, a measure championed by former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum.

In all, two California campaign committees backing the term-limit measure have received a total of $1.64 million in donations. By itself, U.S. Term Limits gave $455,000 to one of the committees, Schabarum’s Limit Congress, in the 11th-hour cash infusion.

U.S. Term Limits gave another $200,000 to a separate committee run by the group founded by the late anti-tax crusader Paul Gann, but a top official in that organization told The Times he became wary of the Washington group and is distancing himself from it.

The Washington organization has spent hundreds of thousands more in other states that have ballot measures to limit congressional terms this fall. Earlier this week, U.S. Term Limits kicked in $150,000 in support of a Michigan ballot measure to limit congressional terms.

In California, opponents and at least one leading supporter of Proposition 164 said they believe that U.S. Term Limits has links to billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch of Wichita, Kan.

The Koch brothers, whose fortune is based on oil, operate Koch Industries, the nation’s second largest privately held company. The Koch brothers (pronounced coke) long have been associated with conservative and Libertarian causes and are strong advocates of term limits.

“I have no idea, and I frankly don’t care,” Schabarum said when asked who was funding U.S. Term Limits.

Jeff Langan, spokesman for U.S. Term Limits, said the Koch brothers have donated no funds to his group. But he acknowledged that his organization uses promotional literature, mailing lists and other items from a campaign committee that the Koch brothers funded to push term limits.

“We are up against major opposition,” Langan said, declining to divulge where U.S. Term Limits is spending its money, or how much its major donors have contributed to it.

“What we’re not going to do is put out a road map for the special interests and career politicians (saying) ‘Here’s what we’ve been able to raise, and this is where it’s going.’ ”

Riff Yeager, spokesman for Koch Industries, said the Koch brothers have “absolutely no direct participation in the California effort,” or any of the other term-limit measures.

“They’ve moved onto other things,” Yeager said.

David and Charles Koch’s fortune is estimated by Forbes at $3 billion. They are the sons of Kansas oil man Fred Koch, a founding member of the ultraconservative John Birch Society. David was the 1980 vice presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket.

The brothers have made news over the years, becoming embroiled in a bitter dispute with two other brothers over the family money, and they have had major confrontations with the federal government. More recently, they were targets of fierce attacks when their involvement was revealed in a move to limit congressional terms in Washington state last year.

Libertarians run candidates for state and federal offices on a platform that calls for a free market approach to economics, repeal of taxes, an end to government regulation of industry, and the abolition of laws against drugs, obscenity and prostitution.

Under California law, U.S. Term Limits is not required to disclose the names of people who donated to it. It is merely registered with the secretary of state as a major donor and must identify to whom it donates.

Since it gives no money to federal candidates--the congressional term-limit measures are state ballot issues--U.S. Term Limits is not covered by federal law, which would require that it identify its benefactors.

A Times poll earlier this week showed Proposition 164 leading by a 2-1 margin. So far, foes of the measure, including Common Cause, the Sierra Club and the League of Women Voters, have raised about $100,000.

“They have taken advantage of every loophole in state and federal disclosure laws to keep the public in the dark about their source of funding,” said Kim Alexander of California Common Cause. “We would hope that the Proposition 164 proponents wouldn’t accept (this money) without knowing where that money originated.”

In addition to the mystery over the source of the funds flowing into the campaign, there are unanswered questions over the measure’s authorship. In Los Angeles, Schabarum takes credit for being the co-author of the initiative.

But the measure on the ballot is not his. Its stated author, according to the secretary of state, is Anita Anderson, who manages a small libertarian bookstore in San Francisco.

Anderson’s bookstore is owned by a corporation whose board includes the wife of the president of U.S. Term Limits, Howard Rich, a New York businessman who also has been involved in Libertarian politics.

Rich sits on the board of the Institute of Humane Studies, a conservative think tank in Virginia. Charles Koch is chairman of the board, and has endowed it with $2 million, according to a recent article in the National Journal.

Schabarum said a measure he had been pushing is “very similar” to what appears on the Nov. 3 ballot. “As matter of fact,” he said, “there is only a couple of deviations.”

Schabarum’s measure had sought to create a constitutional amendment, while the measure before voters Tuesday would create a statute limiting congressional terms. Schabarum also sought to limit congressional service to eight years. The measure before voters would limit service to six years.

U.S. Term Limits first became a player in California politics when it contacted the California Committee to Limit Terms, a campaign committee formed by People’s Advocate, the organization set up by Paul Gann.

In a letter dated Jan. 30, U.S. Term Limits President Rich promised Ted Costa of People’s Advocate that his group would donate $200,000 to gather signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot. In exchange, the letter said, People’s Advocate would be the lead spokesman for the measure.

“Obviously, fund raising is essential to this whole process, and we both agree that we will need a substantial media budget,” Rich’s letter said.

While Costa accepted the money, he also responded coolly to the arrangement, insisting to Rich that his organization had to maintain its independence. Now, he noted, he no longer is receiving funds from U.S. Term Limits. Rather, the recent funds are going to Schabarum’s group.

“What a goddamned mess,” Costa said when asked about U.S. Term Limits. “I wished I knew who they were. . . . “

Costa noted that it “was common knowledge” that the Koch brothers had “bankrolled” the pro-term limit organization, Citizens for Congressional Reform, which took the lead in financing the unsuccessful congressional term limitation initiative in Washington state last year.

Citizen’s for Congressional Reform was pushing a similar initiative this year in Michigan, spending $200,000 to qualify it for the ballot. But Citizens for Congressional Reform folded as elections officials in that state asked for information about its source of funds.

As Citizens for Congressional Reform folded, U.S. Term Limits became more prominent, raising speculation among many, including Costa, that it was the Kochs’ new vehicle for pushing term limits. Citizens for Congressional Reform transferred its promotional literature, desks, computers and mailing list to Rich and U.S. Term Limits.

“We wanted the separation, but we also wanted the assets to be used wisely,” said Paul Beckner of Citizens for a Sound Economy, the chair of which is David Koch. Citizens for a Sound Economy is the parent organization of Citizens for Congressional Reform.

Morain reported from Sacramento and Bornemeier from Washington.

LINK

EXAMPLE OF WHAT TERM LIMITS (AND GERRYMANDERING) HAS ACCOMPLISHED IN FLORIDA

 

EXAMPLE OF WHAT TERM LIMITS (AND GERRYMANDERING) HAS ACCOMPLISHED IN FLORIDA

Florida’s shame: Ten terrible decisions by a broken Legislature

SUN SENTINEL EDITORIAL BOARD April 30, 2021

The 2021 session of the Legislature ended Friday — and not a moment too soon.

The policy wreckage lawmakers leave behind is astounding in its scope. It hurts working families, punishes kids and is downright mean. This session exposes the tragic consequences of arrogant one-party Republican dominance in a Capitol closed off to the public it represents.

Where to begin? Let’s start at the beginning with House Bill 1, the No. 1 priority of Gov. Ron DeSantis. More than any legislator, the governor bears the most responsibility for this shameful body of legislative work. His fingerprints are everywhere.

‘Anti-riot’: A trifecta of stupidity: a racially motivated attack on citizens’ First Amendment rights, a national embarrassment and a disaster waiting to happen. Under the pretense of public safety, this law provides legal immunity to crazies who drive SUVs into crowds of protesters. Signed into law by DeSantis before a conspicuously all-white crowd, this monstrosity is a device to advance his presidential hopes. Floridians will suffer just so DeSantis can spout right-wing “law and order” talking points on Fox News.

Big Tech: Rubber-stamping another DeSantis priority, Republicans imposed new regulations on social media platforms with fines of up to $250,000 a day for de-platforming or censoring politicians (SB 7072). We condemn censorship, but Republican politicians are the last ones who qualify as protectors of speech (see HB 1, above). This is a distraction from the real problems Floridians face, a sop to Donald Trump and his followers, could protect hate speech and is probably unconstitutional.

Lawmakers added a carve-out for any social media channel whose owner also has a theme park, which shows their real priority is deep-pocketed donors like Disney, not Fox News viewers.

Elections: Republicans won big in Florida in 2020, but they’re jittery about how many Democrats voted by mail. So they insisted on a partisan crackdown on mail ballots and the use of drop boxes that Democrats favored in 2020. The GOP shunned voter advocates and local election supervisors and silenced opponents at hearings in Tallahassee. These unnecessary restrictions will be attacked in court and should be. The state association of election supervisors said Friday the bill (SB 90) will make it harder for people to vote.

Guns: Even an NRA neutered by its own misdeeds can’t make lawmakers show any gun sanity. They legalized guns in churches that share property with schools (HB 259) and expanded a decades-old preemption of local gun regulations (SB 1884) by adding unwritten gun policies, such as verbal instructions to local police officers.

Preemptions: You name it, power-hungry politicians in Tallahassee want to control it at the expense of cities and counties, from guns (SB 1844) to energy policy (HB 919) to seaports (SB 1194) to home-based businesses (HB 403). The latter guts local oversight and makes it easier for the guy next door to open an auto body repair shop or massage parlor. It’s total overkill, a glaring contradiction to the small-government idea that government closest to the people governs best. If you want to fight City Hall, head for Tallahassee.

RELATED: 'Shocked and appalled': How Florida lawmakers resurrected a transgender athlete ban

Transgender kids: For sheer cruelty, this one beats them all. Republicans revived a bill thought dead and used their raw power to ram through a ban on transgender female athletes competing in girls’ and women’s high-school and college sports (SB 1028), sticking it in a charter school bill. This heartless ostracizing of a marginalized community took place despite protests from Democrats, such as Sen. Victor Torres, D-Orlando, who made a deeply moving speech about his trans granddaughter. “We don’t need this!” Torres shouted. “But obviously some don’t care.” No, they don’t.

Unemployment: Despite billions of dollars from the Biden administration, stingy lawmakers refused to raise Florida’s jobless benefits. They will remain $275 a week for a maximum of 12 weeks, among the lowest of any state (HB 1463). And the long-overdue collection of sales taxes on sales by out-of-state online retailers (SB 50) won’t help working people. The $1 billion a year will replenish the fund that pays jobless benefits, making it a Republican giveaway to businesses who normally support the fund through unemployment premium taxes.

International travelers will likely need proof of vaccination to travel, but Gov. Ron DeSantis has prohibited them in Florida.

Vaccines: Pandering to the anti-vaxxer crowd, lawmakers banned so-called vaccine passports, making a misguided DeSantis executive order permanent (SB 2006) and trampling on counties where the COVID-19 virus has been harder to control — especially South Florida. The result means that businesses, schools and governments cannot force people to prove they’ve been vaccinated.

Vaping: Republicans tried to fool the public into thinking they were doing something by raising the age to smoke and vape from 18 to 21 (SB 1080). But that’s already in federal law. What the bill really does is wipe out stronger local regulations to curtail marketing and sale of tobacco and vaping products (more preemption). To no one’s surprise, makers of e-cigarettes are reliable donors to political campaigns. (more kowtowing to moneyed interests).

Vouchers: The privatization of public education continues. Lawmakers expanded school vouchers so more parents can send their children to private schools at public expense. A bill (HB 7045) consolidates two popular scholarship programs for special needs students with a third program for low- and middle-income families and expands eligibility to incomes of nearly $100,000 for a family of four. At the same time, lawmakers cut a $600 book stipend for some Bright Futures scholarship recipients.

This year marks the 25th year of Republican control of both houses of the Legislature. The GOP secured a majority in the Senate in 1994 and the House in 1996. This is no way to mark that milestone. The Florida Legislature is broken, and the only fix is at the ballot box, starting next year.