The Appearance in America - Brazen or Improper?

By Randell A. Monaco
January 22, 2011

A review of history beginning in 1980 would confirm that The Federalist Society has been in step with what has become the greatest assault on American freedom and prosperity in our lifetimes. More specifically, they have been the strategic enablers.

Understanding the full scope of that effort is beyond the scope of my purpose here as I want to focus on the brazen disregard of a long standing tenet of our legal profession and judiciary. I have long admired Chief Justice Earl Warren for many reasons. First is that it was by his hand that the commerce clause was used to facilitate the civil rights movement. Americans can be proud of our evolving to the point of having elected our first black president - something I personally am very proud to have been part of and witnessed. Also, as a nation we have taken for granted many of the freedoms and protections that were hard fought and won during the years of the Warren Court.

However, one of the reasons I admire Chief Justice Warren is because of the integrity that he brought to the high court. It may interest many to know that he was a Republican. He never campaigned for constituents; he terminated his campaign staffs rather than hire them once elected. He was ever vigilant to avoid the “appearance of impropriety” which is a concept lost on several current members of our United States Supreme Court.

There are three members of our current high court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who belong to The Federalist Society. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has now focused attention on Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as it appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by that decision.

A reasonable person would question the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia in the 5-4 ruling of the Citizens United case based on their attendance at political strategy meetings sponsored by a corporation that raises and spends millions to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans. Both Justices are mentioned in Koch Brothers materials which raises concern about their impartiality. Whether there is an actual conflict of interest is a matter for the Department of Justice to decide. But the appearance of impropriety is a matter of public perception which taints the credibility of the entire court in the public eye.

In fact Justice Thomas’ wife, founder of Liberty Central - a conservative group funded by anonymous donors who endorsed candidates in numerous 2010 races, publicly said she’d accept corporate money in light of the Citizen United decision. Just how this would appear to the American public seems an obvious, if not a brazen, disregard for the integrity of our high court.

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause submitted documentation to our Justice Department citing appearances of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia at retreats sponsored by Koch Industries, a corporation run by two major Republican donors who helped finance some of the new GOP groups founded after the Citizens United ruling.

Isn’t the concept of avoiding the appearance of impropriety brazenly disregarded when a Supreme Court judge is “featured” at or attends closed door strategy meetings with political donors, corporate CEOs, candidates and political officials? Should they lend credibility and the prestige of their position to the political goals of those events? I would suggest that if the Honorable Chief Justice Earl Warren where here to rule on the appearance of impropriety the gavel would fall quickly against the reckless disregard for the integrity of our nation’s highest tribunal.

It is worth noting that in an interview with CNN, then House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he believed Senate Minority Leader Mitchell McConnell and now House Majority Speaker John Boehner deliberately snubbed a November invitation to an intimate dinner with the President in his private residence at the White House. As it turned out, Republicans collectively backed out of the dinner with Obama saying they were too busy. Instead, McConnell and Boehner attended a dinner held by The Federalist Society that featured as its keynote speaker Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Also in attendance was Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. and the son of Justice Scalia.

So, how does the schmoozing of our elected representatives that don’t have time to meet with our President to discuss jobs in America and their attending political speeches with the Federalist Society appear to the public - brazen or just improper?

Refusing to Criticize Schwarzenegger

It is easier to criticize Governor Schwarzenegger that to praise him for showing us what is actually wrong with the system. I believe he earnestly attempted to positively and constructively influence Sacramento’s lawmakers and failed. Not his fault is my opinion, because he did so in the best way he could reckon from the stormy currents he faced. He attempted to deliver on his campaign promises and his public service was just that, not self service!

With that said, it is likely true that he overestimated and actually didn’t understand the challenge. Naive’ ok! I’ll take that every day over the likes of Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina or for that matter George Bush.

I will remember Governor Schwarzenegger as a man who challenged bureaucracy and attempted to build a consensus to bridge the gaps of partisanship. Saying he was naive’ is not a slam because it is clear that few actually do understand and even fewer are willing to discuss what is broken and why. But before I take issue with what is truly dysfunctional in California I want to be on the record for saying that in my mind, Governor Schwarzenegger deserves our respect for attempting to work within and use a system that is broken and built to fail. He deserves our respect for refusing to sign a budget where prisons are given more money than education. He deserves our respect for being a public servant and not a self servant the most uncommon commodity in today’s political arena.

Fear mongers and their special interests friends make an end run on our legislature at every bump in the road. It is California’s initiative process that enables, fosters and continually undermines our governing structure and processes. Why bother electing and paying a state legislature lets save the money. We’ll do our own legislating so why have two? This is the hyper-partisanship we refer to when we discuss Sacramento. The Initiative process makes laws that have not been budgeted for or analyzed, debated and scrutinized. Yet we continue to fund them and leave the how to, for Sacramento and the Governor. California wake up; these problems are not partisan they are special and self interests. Follow the money; look to see who those special interest groups are and you will solve the problem. Thank you, Arnold for giving it the old college try. Your legacy is a good one in my book. (http://thirdcloud-yourhonormayibeheard.blogspot.com/)