Federal judges and judicial independence; Radical right RINO hunting

Unaccountable federal judges 

A NYT opinion piece discusses judicial independence and how it can be two-edged sword, one edge pro-democracy, the other anti-democracy. The author, Jamelle Bouie, raises two interesting questions about lifetime tenure for federal judges. Bouie writes:

The most striking detail in the recent investigation by The New York Times into another potential Supreme Court breach is not the evidence that Justice Samuel Alito or his wife may have leaked information to conservative friends in 2014 about the outcome of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which extended “religious liberty” to the actions of family-owned corporations.

No, the most striking detail is the extent to which a number of Republican justices, Alito included, appear to have been the targets of a sophisticated and well-funded influence operation designed to notch as many legal and constitutional victories for moneyed and conservative interests as the justices were willing to give.

The framers of the Constitution wanted an independent judiciary — strong enough to resist corruption as well as the influence of public opinion. As such, federal judges enjoy tenure during “good behavior.” Barring impeachment and conviction, they cannot be removed.  

My colleagues in the newsroom, Jodi Kantor and Jo Becker, describe a kind of revolving door, where wealthy donors to conservative causes invite justices to meals, vacation homes and private clubs; where they contribute money to the Supreme Court Historical Society for the purpose of meeting with and influencing the justices; and where the former head of one such influence operation, Faith and Action, went as far as to purchase a building across the street from the court so that he could cultivate the people who worked there.

But what if lifetime tenure, rather than leading judges away from temptation, makes it easier to tempt them? In an era in which the Supreme Court is as powerful as it has ever been — and which, not coincidentally, the wealthiest Americans have an almost unbreakable grip on our politics — what if lifetime tenure, rather than raising the barriers to corruption, makes it easier to influence the court by giving interested parties the time and space to operate? And beyond the question of undue influence, what if lifetime tenure works too well to sever the court from the public, rendering it both unaccountable and dangerous to the popular foundations of American government?

No modern radical right Republican federal judge would admit to being influenced by rich and powerful people. They all vehemently deny it. But those people are skilled liars. And probably significantly self-deceived. Rich and powerful people are who federal judges tend to socialize with and listen to. America's political system is widely known as a pay-to-play system.[1] To get influence, i.e., to play, one can pay with cash or with whatever perks that power can afford. 

See the two-edged sword here? When Republican politicians choose morally rotted, radical right and Christian nationalist judges, why believe in their moral rectitude or their reading of the US Constitution? They are called by God himself to fix what is broken in America. They have their morals and infallible, God given Christian Sharia laws. They don't care about our morals or secular laws. 

Radicalism and violence

The NYT editorial board published an interesting argument in an essay, How a Faction of the Republican Party Enables Political Violence:

On Oct. 12, 2018, a crowd of Proud Boys arrived at the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan. They had come to the Upper East Side club from around the country for a speech by the group’s founder, Gavin McInnes. It was a high point for the Proud Boys — which until that point had been known best as an all-male right-wing street-fighting group — in their embrace by mainstream politics.

The Metropolitan Republican Club is an emblem of the Republican establishment. It was founded in 1902 by supporters of Theodore Roosevelt, and it’s where New York City Republicans such as Fiorello La Guardia and Rudy Giuliani announced their campaigns. But the presidency of Donald Trump whipped a faction of the Metropolitan Republican Club into “an ecstatic frenzy,” said John William Schiffbauer, a Republican consultant who used to work for the state G.O.P. on the second floor of the club.

Republicans at the New York club have not distanced themselves from the Proud Boys. Soon after the incident, a candidate named Ian Reilly, who, former club members say, had a lead role in planning the speech, won the next club presidency. He did so in part by recruiting followers of far-right figures, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, to pack the club’s ranks at the last minute. A similar group of men repeated the strategy at the New York Young Republicans Club, filling it with far-right members, too.

Many moderate Republicans have quit the clubs in disgust. Looking back, Mr. Schiffbauer said, Oct. 12, 2018, was a “proto” Jan. 6. 

In conflicts like this one — not all of them played out so publicly — there is a fight underway for the soul of the Republican Party. On one side are Mr. Trump and his followers, including extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. On the other side stand those in the party who remain committed to the principle that politics, even the most contentious politics, must operate within the constraints of peaceful democracy. It is vital that this pro-democracy faction win out over the extremists and push the fringes back to the fringes.

It has happened before. The Republican Party successfully drove the paranoid extremists of the John Birch Society out of public life in the 1960s. Party leaders could do so again for the current crop of conspiracy peddlers. .... A healthy democracy requires both political parties to be fully committed to the rule of law and not to entertain or even tacitly encourage violence or violent speech. A large faction of one party in our country fails that test, and that has consequences for all of us.

It is impossible to fully untangle the relationship between conspiracy theories and violence. But what Americans do know should sound alarms: A survey this year found that some 18 million Americans believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and that force is justified to return him to power. Of those 18 million, eight million own guns, and one million either belong to a paramilitary group or know someone who does. That’s alarming because violent people who belong to communities, online or offline, where violence is widely accepted are more likely to act. A portion of the G.O.P. has become such a community.

It is unclear to me how powerful “moderate Republicans” in the GOP might be. One does not hear much from them. Most of the Republicans in congress voted to protect Trump and they currently treat the 1/6 coup attempt as no big deal and not worth investigating. The RNC still calls the 1/6 coup attempt “legitimate political discourse.” Radicalized, extremist Republican theocrats control the Supreme Court and in a few weeks they will control the House. 

The NYT’s Editorial Board may misapprehend the weakness of moderate Republicans and the strength of the radical extremists. The moderates have been RINO hunted out of power, influence and/or the party. Sure, there are some moderates left, just like there are some atheists, gays, pro-abortionists and people who support some gun regulations. But their presence in the party is insignificant. 

It’s a safe bet that most of the Nazis (~99.9% ?)  

don’t support Biden or democrats generally[2]

Footnotes: 

1. Wikipedia on pay-to-play in politics:

While the direct exchange of campaign contributions for contracts is the most visible form of pay-to-play, the greater concern is the central role of money in politics, and its skewing of both the composition and the policies of government. Thus, those who can pay the price of admission, such as to a $1000/plate dinner or $25,000 “”breakout session”, gain access to power and/or its spoils, to the exclusion of those who cannot or will not pay: “giving certain people advantages that other[s] don't have because they donated to your campaign.” Good-government advocates consider this an outrage because “political fundraising should have no relationship to policy recommendations.”

But as we all know, political fundraising has a direct relationship to actual policy.

2. The Guardian wrote in 2016:

American Nazi Party leader sees 'a real opportunity' 

with a Trump presidency

Chairman Rocky Suhayda says on radio show that a Donald Trump presidency could give American Nazis the chance to build a ‘pro-white’ political caucus 

“It doesn’t have to be anti, like the movement’s been for decades, so much as it has to be pro-white. It’s kinda hard to go and call us bigots, if we don’t go around and act like a bigot. That’s what the movement should contemplate. All right.”