Welcome to online-astoria.com

by Chris McGowan

Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement from the Supreme Court this week after 34 years of service. Although he was appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford, Stevens came to be seen as the leader of the court’s liberal wing.

This liberal record, however, did not seem to bother the former president. In fact, in a 2005 letter, Ford expressed his incredible pride in appointing Stevens. “I am prepared,” Ford wrote, “to allow history’s judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination 30 years ago of John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

High praise for the justice, and a sign of the respect he has earned across the political and legal spectrum for his accomplishments.

Stevens has been extremely influential during his time on the bench. He wrote the majority opinion on a number of landmark cases, including Atkins v. Virginia, where the court ruled that executing mentally retarded defendants violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He also made his presence felt in the minority. He wrote the dissent this year against the majority’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, arguing that the Court had dramatically overstepped its power in order to change the law and allow corporations to spend money without limits in political campaigns.

But, as Dan Froomkin points out this week, what has really made Stevens so influential is his ability to sway the opinions of the other members of the court, especially Justice Kennedy, the court’s last true swing vote. Stevens brought Kennedy to his side on issues like habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo prisoners and the necessary enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

I am inclined to agree with Froomkin that Stevens is not the last of the great liberal justices, but the last of the “moderate Republican justices,” a dying breed that has been replaced by the four “zealots” of the court: Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. Stevens himself has acknowledged the court’s dramatic movement to the right in the last few decades, citing the Citizens United ruling as the most glaring and immediate example.

But liberal or moderate, Stevens will surely be missed. As Froomkin writes, Stevens has shown an “unblinking devotion to human rights, civil rights, and the rights of the little guy.”

As Obama and his administration move to choose his replacement, they should keep this essential quality about Stevens firmly in mind. It’s not something that will make a nominee filibuster-proof, but it is a necessary characteristic of a good and fair justice.

Image from: www.nytimes.com

by Chris McGowan

The Obama administration announced plans this week to lift a longstanding ban on oil-drilling off the US coast. New regions open to drilling would include East Coast waters from Delaware to Florida, Gulf Coast waters from Florida to Texas, and Arctic waters off the northern coast of Alaska.

In his announcement, President Obama framed the decision as part of a larger effort to increase American energy independence and move away from our reliance on foreign oil. But, as Obama himself pointed out on the campaign trail, the logic of that argument just doesn’t quite add up.

First of all, “energy independence” is not a realistic goal if we attempt to accomplish it through oil drilling. Not only is the amount of oil that actually exists off the US coast minimal in comparison to how much oil we consume, but it’s clear that the benefits of off-shore drilling would not be nearly as substantial for the American people as it would be for a select few oil companies.

That is because oil is a global commodity. Oil prices, therefore, are set in the international market. So whichever companies end up drilling off US shores would still be able to sell that oil to countries throughout the world. The effect on oil prices, therefore, as then-candidate Obama said, would be “minimal at best.” Similarly, Middle East countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia would not be “hurt” or weakened, as many people hope, by increased American drilling, since demand is so high that they could very easily just sell to someone else. Plus, the United States imports most of its oil from Canada and Mexico anyway, not exactly two rogue regimes or two countries we need to discourage trade with.

And while the first usable oil would not be extracted from any of these sites for at least ten years, the environmental consequences would be felt almost immediately, as companies begin exploratory drilling and other kinds of testing. Scientists warn that the drilling will cause the destruction of coastal areas and the extinction of many species, including the polar bear.

Meanwhile it seems like the administration’s decision is so obviously political that the media has forgotten to cover the actual substance of the policy. It is right to suggest that the move is politically motivated but wrong to then analyze the move for its political consequences alone. The job of the media is to cut through the symbolism of politicians, not to reinforce and create it.

The point is not that Obama has compromised, but that a compromise of this kind is meaningless except for its political dimensions. This was not a deal cut with Republican lawmakers, it was an announcement made to pre-empt the coming legislative battle over climate change policy. And, as Obama made clear during the campaign, off-shore drilling is nothing more than a Republican talking point. It is certainly not substantive policy.

Of course, this has been Obama’s brand of politics since he took office a year ago, a (necessary?) response to his right-wing critics and the collective TV punditry. In fact, it often seems as though the president is compromising with the mainstream media narrative rather than with conservative policy makers. See: the healthcare debate.

Policy-wise, Obama is wrong to open these areas to drilling, but who can say whether this decision will help him accomplish his larger climate change and energy policy goals? The problem is that issues as complicated and important as energy require serious people who are actually interested in serving the American people, and it often seems that neither the media nor the Republican party fit that description.

Image from: www.huffingtonpost.com

by Chris McGowan

The healthcare bill was signed into law by the president this week after more than a year of debate in Washington and more than a hundred years of struggle by progressive activists and both Democratic and Republican politicians, including several presidents.

The bill will expand coverage to more than 30 million Americans and implement much needed reforms of the health insurance industry, which has long gone basically unchecked by governmental regulation. Make no mistake: despite its flaws, the bill is a major victory for the American people and a huge step forward in improving our healthcare system.

Even for progressives disappointed by the bill’s continued support of the private insurance industry, there are a whole lot of seemingly little things to like, in addition, of course, to the dramatic expansion of coverage and new regulations. For instance, as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) points out, the bill lays the groundwork for addressing the major shortage of primary care physicians, a problem that nearly everyone has identified as a central barrier to improving both coverage and costs.

So what now for Democrats? Healthcare has consumed congressional and national media attention for the last year while issues like energy, immigration, and financial reform have remained on the backburner. And the attention’s not going away. Now that the bill has passed, the most prevalent media narrative has been the effect of the bills’ passage on the 2012 midterm elections.

But Democrats still have a lot of governing to do. They need to realize that perhaps the most significant political consequence of the healthcare debate is their chance to learn from their mistakes and figure out how to proceed with their legislative agenda from here on out.

Some obvious lessons: 1) Do not be so timid. Take the initiative and start selling the legislation from the beginning, especially President Obama. 2) Bipartisanship has its limits, especially in this political climate. There is no appeasing the radical right. 3) Legislative majorities come and go, but huge majorities like this one, which offer the chance to dramatically shape policy, do not. Act now. And act for major change. Compromise comes later in the process.

The general shape of the 2010 midterms might already be set, but the legislative accomplishments of this Congress and this president most certainly are not. Democrats made history this week, but there are a host of other issues right now that demand the same.

Image courtesy of: www.newyorktimes.com/