Elections and Consequences II

Very interesting article by Jeffery Rosen about the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts in the aftermath of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. The truth is the elections of 2000 and 2004 will have very long lasting effects in US domestic policy. (The international policy are much more obvious.) Is the SCOTUS under Roberts a new form of pro-business activist or is a new form of judicial restraint? Either way, Rosen points to the dangers of the narrow decisions politicizing the court and setting a social reaction into motion.

A question left unanswered is what role will populist anger play in determining how the Roberts' Court is percieved? The reason I ask is because prior conservative leaning courts were conservative in more of a libertarian strain, especially earlier in the 20th century. As Rosen aptly points out, the current court is pro-business conservative, which plays counter to the current populist rage. The Citizens decision not only went over like a lead balloon for the progressives and liberals, but also for the neo-populists. Unfortunately neither I nor the media really seem to have a firm grasp on neo-populism because like the New Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s they are organized in clusters around the country and lack a centralizing organization. (For the New Left, this organization structure was intentional, and I am not sure if it is intentional or not with the current neo-populist movement.) I see this as not only a problem for the Court, but also for the Republican Party (as they are clearly the more pro-business of the two parties), and organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce.

Go and read.


image: "U.S. Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. (LOC)" from The Library of Congress' photostream