No one believed in and embodied the labor movement’s transformative power more than organizer, strategist, and writer Jane McAlevey.

The post We’re in a Class War. Jane McAlevey Actually Acted Like It. appeared first on EWOC.

Aziz Rana’s new book, The Constitutional Bind, provides a blueprint for the Left to return to agitating against the constitutional order. We should follow it. 

East Bay DSA recently concluded a two-part political education series about the Constitution’s undemocratic structural provisions and the Left’s rediscovery of democratic republicanism. Discussion topics included the malapportioned Senate, the obstructionist Article 5 amendment process, the political demands in DSA’s platform, and YDSA’s scintillating 2023 resolution, “Winning the Battle For Democracy.” Questions abounded, including the relevance of constitutional obstacles to socialist organizing, the reasons for constitutional reverence, and how to make the United States an actual democracy. 

Aziz Rana addresses many of the above questions in his latest book, The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document that Fails Them. Rana is a professor of law and government at Boston College. He has written for Jacobin, spoken at the annual Socialism Conference, and been interviewed for Class, the National Political Education Committee’s podcast. With The Constitutional Bind, Rana has succeeded in creating a resource for all interested in critically exploring the framers’ creation.

An important question sits at the heart of The Constitution Bind: why has constitutional veneration remained “a naturalized, unremarked-upon feature” of American life? In search of an answer, Rana explores US history using the first (1887) and second (1987) centennial celebrations as reference points. The first centennial celebration was underwhelming. The Civil War and increased economic inequality during the Gilded Age made the founders appear less than sagacious. Criticism increased in the leadup to World War I, as seen in the popularity of the Socialist Party of America (SPA), whose national party platforms consistently called for the abolition of the Senate, the direct election of federal judges, the termination of judicial review and the presidential veto, and the convening of a second constitutional convention to make its democratic demands a reality. The SPA-affiliated paper, Appeal to Reason, ran regular constitutional polemics. Prominent party members across the political spectrum, including Eugene Debs and Victor Berger, denounced the Constitution as “in every sense a denial of democracy.”

Socialists, grounded in the democratic republicanism of Marxism and the homegrown democratic republicanism of Thomas Paine and Radical Republicans, used to discuss the Constitution prolifically. Rana writes that their “rhetorical bashing of courts, constitutions, and judges knew few bounds.” Many socialists, like Crystal Eastman, who co-founded the parent organization of today’s American Civil Liberties Union, defended civil rights as innate human rights endangered by the Constitution’s denial of universal and equal suffrage. Eastman’s defense of civil liberties intentionally avoided praise for the Bill of Rights. She and her socialist co-thinkers wanted to “uproot the existing mode of constitutional decision-making” and ensure “meaningful control by working people over the constitutional system as a whole.” 

Criticism of the Constitution changed when nearly a century of war, hot and cold, provided a much-needed boost to the document’s public image. Rana writes: 

By the early 1940s, issues of fundamental reform no longer shaped the constitutional discussion. Instead, conversations reflected a consolidating faith that the document was central to an anti-totalitarian American way of life, which culturally and politically safeguarded citizens from dictatorship. 

War shrank the parameters of political imagination. Americans were presented with three choices: fascism, communism, or constitutional republicanism, which went by the name of democracy. The Constitution looked increasingly attractive, and many previous skeptics, including iconoclastic historian Charles Beard and legendary organizer A. Philip Randolph began to have a change of heart. The United States wasn’t flawless, but constitutional critiques were too dangerous during times of “Stalinist purges” and “fascist tyranny.” By the second centennial, the “constitutional creed” appeared rock-solid. A few dissenters remained, including W.E.B Du Bois and later Afeni Shakur and Huey Newton. Still, these holdouts were increasingly isolated and had stopped critiquing the structural denial of universal and equal suffrage (with the notable exception of Du Bois). 

The past six years have now led to a revival of constitutional criticism. In a recent interview, Rana explained how contemporary events shaped the creation of The Constitutional Bind. At first, the book was constructed as a wake-up call, an attempt to spread indignation by presenting the little-known history of constitutional disloyalty. However, several events, including Donald Trump’s Electoral College victory and a host of Supreme Court rulings, threw the legitimacy of American political institutions into crisis. Constitutional veneration was fading, and a document once capable of hiding in plain sight was becoming increasingly conspicuous. As a result, The Constitutional Bind in its finished form is less a wake-up call and more a resource for those already looking to free the country of its constitutional chains and escape what many have called a second Gilded Age.  

Significantly for our organization, Rana references DSA’s platform and its constitutional analysis two times. First, as an exception to the otherwise “limited nature of the current reform conversation.” While most discussions are “largely centered on particular, if valuable, procedural adjustments,” DSA alone calls for the abolition of the Senate and Electoral College and a second constitutional convention. Second, and most notably, Rana calls the platform a “conscious effort to update the 1912 SPA legal-political agenda for the present day.” 

Rana’s words should be taken as a challenge, not flattery. While tens of millions will vote for Biden in November, far fewer believe the Democratic Party is in any way a champion of democracy. Today, there is an obvious need for precisely what Rana describes as a modern version of the SPA’s platform. Will DSA make that effort? Regardless, The Constitutional Bind is essential to the struggle for a democratic constitution — one that can fully live up to the principles of one person, one equal vote.

The post Book Review: The Constitutional Bind by Aziz Rana appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

On Sunday, June 23rd, the DSA National Political Committee (NPC) voted to endorse Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) so long as she fulfills the following conditions: 

• Publicly opposes all funding to Israel, including the Iron Dome
• Participates regularly in the DSA Federal Socialists in Office Committee
• Publicly opposes all criminalization of Anti-Zionism, such as bills advancing the IHRA definition which conflates criticism of Israel with anti-semitism
• Publicly supports BDS (Boycott, Divest, and Sanction) to end Israeli settler-colonialism

This initial endorsement request was considered upon request of New York City DSA’s Steering Committee (NYC-DSA SC). Earlier this week, the NPC received a request from NYC-DSA SC to withdraw the endorsement because it took place after the New York Democratic Primary and they did not expect a conditional endorsement or feel it was strategic. Because we have not seen evidence of AOC meeting these conditions, and at the request of the NYC-DSA SC, the NPC is withdrawing our conditional endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, although she will remain endorsed by our New York City chapter. 

In the last several months, thousands of DSA members provided input about the prospect of a national endorsement through town halls, meetings, and engaging in their chapters’ discussions, and AOC was invited to speak at a member forum. Many members have supported national endorsement while at the same time demanding that AOC demonstrate a higher level of commitment to Palestinian liberation, self-determination, and the immediate end to the heinous genocide in Gaza committed by Israel that aligns with DSA’s positions and expectations of socialists in office. 

We recognize that AOC has taken many courageous positions on Palestine such as co-sponsoring several House Resolutions (3103, 786,  496), naming Israel’s genocide as well as opposing House Resolution 894. However, members have raised their concerns regarding a number of her votes, including a vote in favor of H.Res.888, conflating opposition to Israel’s “right to exist” with antisemitism. AOC also co-signed a press release on April 20, 2024, that “support[s] strengthening the Iron Dome and other defense systems” 

Finally, AOC recently hosted a public panel with leaders from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, lobbyists for the IHRA definition of antisemitism. On this panel, anti-Zionism and antisemitism were conflated and boycotting Zionist institutions was condemned. This sponsorship is a deep betrayal to all those who’ve risked their welfare to fight Israeli apartheid and genocide through political and direct action in recent months, and in decades past.

A national DSA endorsement comes with a serious commitment to the movement for Palestine and our collective socialist project. We must endorse candidates who enthusiastically seek a relationship with DSA, and the National Political Committee as the highest body of the organization between conventions is responsible for setting the criteria we establish for national endorsements. Chapters have a responsibility to make this clear to their endorsed candidates when applying for a national endorsement.  The NPC is committed to ensuring that all of our elected officials are unabashed in their support for Palestinian freedom. To build a socialist movement that’s capable of defeating capitalism, we must demand more from leaders in our movement. 

Correction: “She conflated anti-Zionism with antisemitism” was edited to read “On this panel, anti-Zionism and antisemitism were conflated” after the statement was posted.

The post Status of DSA National Endorsement for Rep. Ocasio-Cortez appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Two Dead at the Hands of Lazy Cops in Kent County

In the Greater Grand Rapids Area, the police have now twice used a dangerous car chase maneuver against an unarmed, fleeing individual, leading to their death. These individuals were wanted for nonviolent crimes and should have been detained using standard protocol. To be clear, the car maneuver we’re talking about is the PIT maneuver, in which a pursuing vehicle swerves into a fleeing vehicle’s back tire in order to cause a spin out. It was never designed to be used against humans, and even the police have even admitted that the maneuver was used incorrectly in both cases. They just aren’t going to do anything about it.

The first instance was April 8th, when Riley Doggett (17) was a passenger in a stolen vehicle being pursued by the police. The driver crashed, and Riley got out of the car and fled until the police caught up and swerved into the fleeing teenager, fully running him over. He died from his injuries days later. The Kent County Sheriff’s office callously remarked that “[Riley’s] actions unfortunately placed him at high risk for a deadly encounter, whether with a citizen or law enforcement. It was fortunate for the community that a Kent County Deputy was the one to confront Mr. Doggett during his crime spree.” Apparently, we as citizens of Grand Rapids should feel safer knowing that our cops are slaughtering people without a trial. The footage of the event can be viewed here, though viewer discretion is advised due to the disturbing content.

The second instance was on the morning of April 17th, when Samuel Sterling (25) was filling up his tires and officers from multiple agencies showed up at his house with a warrant for breaking his parole. A chase ensued, and Samuel was eventually caught by an officer using a PIT maneuver to pinch Sterling against the side of a Burger King. The driver reversed, and Sterling fell to the ground. He can be heard saying to the officers, “I got no gun, bro…why you hitting me like this?” The cops then cuff him, take his belongings out of his pockets, and stand around his body, doing nothing to help him. An officer can be heard telling two firefighters to keep his cuffs on because he was a “wanted, violent felon.” This isn’t true. Samuel’s three felonies were for carrying a concealed weapon and theft, all nonviolent crimes. You can watch the video here, though again, viewer discretion is advised. Samuel died just a few hours later in the hospital. 

To add insult to injury, only the offending officer in the second instance is being charged with murder. This is likely due to the fact that this crime falls under the jurisdiction of our progressive state attorney general, Dana Nessel, because the offending officer was a member of the state police. The Kent County Sheriff’s Deputy Josiah McMains is left in the hands of the extremely conservative Kent County prosecutor Chris Becker, so they get off much easier. This is further evidence that the divide between “criminals” and non-criminals is not only socially constructed, but arbitrarily enforced. Becker is throwing the book at Riley’s friend, charging him with Fleeing and Eluding Causing Death, and attempting to try him as an adult. Meanwhile, the blood-thirsty thugs in blue will seemingly continue their vehicular rampage until they’re forced to stop by a higher power, because it saves them time and effort during a chase. What sort of a justice system is that?

All of this feels familiar when we remember the doorbell footage from April 4, 2022 which showed Grand Rapids Police Officer Christopher Schurr struggle to detain Patrick Lyoya, get frustrated, and unceremoniously end the struggle with a bullet to the back of Patrick’s head. At the time Chris Becker assured us that, despite his work being so closely aligned with the GRPD, he did not know Officer Schurr personally and wouldn’t need to recuse himself. More than two years later, and we’re still waiting for that trial to happen and Patrick’s family is still waiting for justice.
And as if this isn’t bad enough, the Grand Rapids police are now campaigning for the right to sue their detainees in civil court; even though they can beat an innocent man without fear of being charged. This means that after arresting you, an officer will be able to steal from you via civil suit. It’s vital that we organize now to rein in our out-of-control law enforcement before it becomes too late. Fight police oppression by protesting any chance you get and vote against this dishonest “Back the Blue” initiative, we can’t afford to give these thugs any more power to oppress us.

The post If the Police Can’t Catch their Criminals, They’ll just Kill Them Instead appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

For five years flight attendants have been locked in contract negotiation with American Airlines (AA) to bargain for a better contract. Since then inflation has increased by more than 30%, yet starting pay remains frozen at $27k a year. 

The flight attendants and their union have authorized a strike with a 99% majority, but government agencies won’t let them. The Railway Labor Act requires flight attendants to obtain approval from the National Mediation Board (NMB) before striking, which the NMB has refused. The NMB’s limit on the right to strike impacts more than the 27,000 flight attendants at AA. In fact, it hurts all railway and airline workers in the nation, their families, and the communities they live in.

With no legal ability to strike, negotiations have been left at a standstill, which benefits no one but AA. They get to freeze employee wages while continuing to inflate their prices and fees. This story repeats across all industries because our government prioritizes the interests of capitalists who own corporations over the interests of workers who keep them running day in, day out.

The AA contract negotiation has gone on for five years: two under Donald Trump and three under Joe Biden. Republican and Democratic politicians may strongly disagree on specific policies, but they regularly come together to keep workers down (for example, Joe Biden recently appointed a Republican to the NMB).

As socialists we recognize the ability to strike as fundamental and necessary to fight the tyranny of capital. Any and all action to restrict this ability should be opposed and overturned. 

Follow the APFA on social media to keep an eye out for how you can support their fight for a better contract.

Upcoming Events

Wednesday, July 10 (6:45 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.): July Chapter Meeting (Zoom and in person at Martin de Porres House of Hospitality)

Thursday, July 11 (5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Jackie Fielder for D9 Supervisor Mobilization (In person at 801 Treat Ave)

Thursday, July 11 (5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Phonebank for Extreme Dean (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Thursday, July 11 (6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.): Palestine Solidarity Anti-Imperialist Working Group (Zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister)

Friday, July 12 (12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.): Office Hours (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Friday, July 12 (7:30 p.m. – 10:30 p.m.): Spaces of Exception Film Screening (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Saturday, July 13 (1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.): Homelessness Working Group Outreach Training (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Saturday, July 13 (1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.): Homelessness Working Group Outreach Training (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Sunday, July 14 (10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.): Extreme Dean Door Knock Mobilization (Meet at Jefferson Square Park)

Sunday, July 14 (1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.): No Appetite for Apartheid Work Session (Zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister)

Monday, July 15 (6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.): Ecosocialist Monthly Meeting (Zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister)

Monday, July 15 (7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Labor Board Meeting (Zoom)

Wednesday, July 17 (5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Phonebank for Extreme Dean (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Wednesday, July 17 (6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.): What is DSA? (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Thursday, July 18 (5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Phonebank for Extreme Dean (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Thursday, July 18 (6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.): Palestine Solidarity and Anti-Imperialist Working Group (Zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister)

Saturday, July 20 (10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.): Extreme Dean Door Knock Mobilization (Location TBD)

Check out https://dsasf.org/events for more events and updates.

Events & Actions

Mission Mob for Jackie Fielder!

Join us for a weekday mobilization for Jackie Fielder! Come out and help us grab voter IDs this Thursday, July 11th at 5:00 p.m. on the corner of 21st and Treat!

Join the Homelessness Working Group for Outreach!

The Homelessness Working Group (HWG) has a Homelessness Outreach Training coming up this Sunday, July 13th at 1:00 p.m. Come get trained on outreach (formerly sock distro) with HWG! We are currently organizing a sock distribution, and continuing our chapter’s efforts directed toward connecting with our homeless neighbors. We’ll be training chapter members about our specific approach to mutual aid and street solidarity, as well as building capacity for this and more expansive mutual aid projects in the future!

Registration is required, so make sure to fill out the form below!

Chapter Movie Night: Spaces of Exception

The DSA SF Palestine Solidarity and Anti-Imperialist Working Group is hosting a film screening of Spaces of Exception on Friday, July 12th at 7:30 p.m. Spaces of Exception is an American Indian- and Palestinian-focused documentary that investigates and juxtaposes the struggles, communities, and spaces of the American Indian reservation and the Palestinian refugee camp. We’d love it if you could make it!

The screening will be hosted at the DSA SF office at 1916 McAllister St. This is a sober event and masks are required, except when eating or drinking. There is a $10 recommended donation at the door which will go directly to the filmmakers. Nobody will be turned away for lack of funds. RSVP below. See you there!

Scientists working for the oil companies have known about climate change since the 1950s. It’s been a scientifically accepted fact since the 1980s. Millennials have grown into middle age listening to the debate between fossil fuel industry plants and reality. And while the pundits argued, climate changed. 2023 was the hottest year since records began in 1850. And 2024 is hotter than that!

Climate change is linked to more frequent natural disasters everywhere. In 2023 alone Canada lost 5% of its forest area to wildfires, China was inundated with more than 9.5” of rain in 24 hours around Beijing, and entire towns in Libya were completely destroyed by sudden flooding.

Grand Rapids had 47” of snow last year, 30 inches less than our average of 76”. Winter sports in Michigan may be a thing of the past. In recent winters, activities such as snowmobiles and skiing have been canceled due to warm temperatures.

Without radical changes, Michigan’s climate could be similar to Oklahoma or North Texas. And summers in Texas may get hot enough to cook a person. We’ll likely see climate migration in the coming decades. Given our current housing crisis, will we be prepared?

Our food systems have been developed based on existing climate patterns. What will happen when those change?

CAPITALISM IS THE PROBLEM

In North America, the European settlers who brought the concept of money had to systematically eradicate the North American indigenous cultures that revered the Earth.  If Capitalism could  save us from  climate change, it would need to somehow reconcile the parts of itself that created the issue in the first place. “Green” Capitalism presents us two options:

Individual Consumer-Based Solutions Are Insufficient

We know that individual solutions aren’t enough to prevent climate catastrophe. Just 100 corporations have been responsible for releasing 71% of greenhouse gasses. In one year, the richest billionaires each produce as much carbon as someone in the 99% would in 1,500 years.

So even if we got the entire working class to ELIMINATE their “carbon footprint” (a term created by the oil industry), we wouldn’t be anywhere close to making the change necessary! Additionally, many of the products for these consumer-based solutions require continued exploitative precious metal mining in Africa, for lithium and cobalt. 

Carbon Offsets Are a Shell Game

The world’s largest companies and Grand Rapids City Government plan on reaching net zero by using carbon offsets. Many consumers are even presented with the option to add $2 to your plane ticket to offset “1,000 air miles” or $17/year to offset your breath.

This money goes to projects like Hawk Mountain Sanctuary in PA–a nature preserve since the 1930s–or Hudson Farm Club in NJ–Billionaire Peter Kelogg’s private hunting club. Things under no threat of bulldozers. There is no additional benefit, just an excuse to continue business as usual. In fact, in a 2021 study the Grantham Research Institute of Climate Change and the Environment found that carbon offsets have substantially increased pollution. And why wouldn’t they? Logging companies can just clear cut the land next door and forest fires don’t care about human contracts.

SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

The solution is simple: LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND! We have pulled out enough fossil fuels that, if burned, would send us into catastrophic climate change. If we stopped burning fossil fuels today and figured out what to do without them tomorrow, the positive effects would still outweigh the negative effects. We don’t need more exploration and extraction. We need a just transition now!

There are common sense solutions that could slash emissions today, like regulating the oil industry and heavily taxing billionaires who are making the worst climate impacts. A competent government would be banning cryptocurrency mining and closing the MPG loophole for ultra-heavy vehicles like SUVs and modern trucks, while improving and expanding public transit, which would drastically reduce emissions and simultaneously reduce traffic, transportation costs, and car accidents.

America’s green transition is moving so slowly because our leaders insist on waiting for private utility companies to switch to renewable energy at a pace that stays profitable. Instead of wasting time while these companies drag their feet, we should be creating and supporting public utilities with the resources and the will to build green energy. NOT TOMORROW BUT TODAY!

Just last year the NYC DSA won a massive campaign to pass the Build Public Renewables Act, which invests heavily in new green energy production and requires the state owned power company to go completely green by 2030. This isn’t a pipe dream, it’s already happening in this country!

The post The Time is NOW for Climate Action! appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

Our Maine Mural podcast is happy to offer this audio recording of T. Sinclair’s article, “Conservative SCOTUS Justices are Waging a Reactionary Revolution,” on the concerted takeover of the Supreme Court by far-right reactionaries and their rising threat to democracy.

The post Maine Mural: Conservative Justices are Waging a Reactionary Revolution appeared first on Pine & Roses.

In spite of all this nonsense from the left, we are going to win. We are in the process of taking this country back. […] We are in the process of the second American revolution, which will remain bloodless, if the left allows it to be.

– Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, July 2024

In 1982, the Federalist Society was founded by a group of conservative law students. Its aim was to challenge what they perceived as a liberal agenda in schools, government agencies, and courts. By 2019, they had reached what the Washington Post dubbed an “unprecedented peak of power and influence.” On today’s Supreme Court five of the nine Justices are current or former members of the Society: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Barrett. The only conservative Justice missing from the Federalist’s list is John Roberts, who held positions in Reagan and G.H.W. Bush’s administrations, both conservative Republicans.

Leaving John Roberts aside, let’s look at the Federalist Society that brought up the other five conservative Justices to this point. The Federalist Society likes to play at being libertarian and demanding equal division of powers. “The separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution,” so says their website. Yet, the Justices they brought into being just dumped a heavy load of power onto the executive and judiciary at the expense of Congress. 

So, what are we looking at? The Federalist Society was started with a grant from the Olin Foundation. John M. Olin was a staunch conservative and president of Olin Industries, which manufactured chemicals and munitions. His foundation was started in 1953 and directly financed the startup of the Federalist Society as a way of raising generations of conservative lobbyists, lawyers, judges, and Justices. Olin and conservatives like him hated the American state apparatus post-New Deal. The rich had to pay more taxes, workers were entitled to more rights and, because of the advances of the working class, the wage gap was much smaller (in 1960 a CEO made roughly 22 times more than a typical worker. By 2022, CEOs made 344 times more than a typical worker). The Federalist Society, in turn, has fought against environmental rights, workers’ rights, and governmental regulatory powers. In short, the Federalist Society has fought for the supremacy of private business over the rights and well-being of American citizens.

It took years, but eventually the Federalist Society got plenty of judges onto federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Through appointments made by Reagan, George H.W., and George W., the Federalist Society saw an influx of federal judge appointments. But, it wasn’t until Trump when they saw their pay day. “Approximately 90% of Donald Trump’s appointments to the federal judiciary are or were members of the Federalist Society,” according to Bloomberg Law. 

So, is it no coincidence that now, when we see a Supreme Court run by Federalist Society appointees, there are a number of rulings that tear at the fabric of American society and legal precedent? One of the first major blows was in 2018 with the Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council ruling. With Federalist Society Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch in the majority, SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that unions representing public workers were not permitted to require union fees by workers. This overruled a long respected precedent set in 1977 by the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision. It would not be the last time this new radically reactionary Supreme Court overturned precedent. 

For example, Roe v. Wade in 2022’s absurd case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Scotus basically ruled that pregnant people in the U.S. do not have a right to abortion, and instead left it up to states whether they would allow abortions within their territorial domains. And, in doing so, the court stripped a person’s right to bodily autonomy.

The Federalist Society Justices have also been doing their best to strip federal agencies of their powers, transferring it over to the courts. Earlier this year, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, our conservative Supreme Court held that courts should not defer to agencies’ expertise. Instead, judges should take the reins and rule as they see fit. There are a number of other rules that limit federal regulatory powers: SEC v. Jarkesy, Ohio v. EPA, and Corner Post v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System. 

Most recently, the Federalist Society Justices have stepped way out of bounds by vastly expanding the immunity powers of the President in Trump v. United States. After Donald Trump pressured Vice President Pence to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and encouraged supporters to protest at the Capitol in order to get his way, he was brought up on a number of charges. These include obstructing an official proceeding, defrauding the U.S., and conspiracy against rights. However, on July 1st, 2024, SCOTUS decided by a 6-3 decision along partisan conservative lines that Presidents are suddenly granted immunity for actions committed while within their official capacity. This has no precedent, and signals a clear shift in the Supreme Court’s approach to law in the United States. Before this, no one was above the law. Now, the President is above the law. What to take from this?

REACTIONARY PERSONALITIES

There is a revolution taking place quietly under our very feet. There are other decisions to be cited, but the above is enough to show that the current Supreme Court is making it up as it goes along. Ignoring past precedent, the conservative majority is taking it upon itself to reshape the American political playing field as it best suits conservatives’ interests. This isn’t just a natural shift that comes along with a majority switching between liberal and conservative. This has been a tidal change the likes we have never seen. So, it behooves us to at least look at two of the institution’s most belligerently partisan Justices.

Samuel Alito

Here’s a man who has happily accepted luxurious vacations paid for by conservative interests. A devout Catholic who has made no mystery regarding his personal stances against same-sex marriage and abortion. And, while these are worrisome, and Justices should be able to put personal biases aside during federal proceedings, Alito has gone further. His family has flown upside down American flags outside of their homes (a symbol that America is in distress), and he has refused to recuse himself from the immunity case against Trump, despite a mountain of evidence suggesting he should. And why has he done all this? 

It’s merely speculation, but Alito comes from a staunchly conservative background and was supported by the Federalist Society. The Federalists have an agenda, largely shared by Alito. For this Justice, it appears as though partisan agenda comes before precedent. They are willing to put aside decades of deliberations in order to ring in a new order of conservative values that will help the rich and hurt the working class. As he was quoted in Lauren Windsor’s undercover audio, “One side or the other is going to win.” Alito clearly is on a mission that only sees black and white, and he has the inability to judge nuance case by case. He is on the track to create a reactionary revolution in order to bring down anything and everything liberal.

Clarence Thomas

This man loves favors. He can’t get enough. His acceptance of gifts and luxury trips was the impetus for SCOTUS laying down some toothless rules around what Justices should or should not accept. But, did that cause him to recuse himself from Donald Trump’s case regarding immunity? Of course not. Thomas narrowly got through a nomination process after he was accused of sexually harassing a worker underneath him. Since then, he has gone on to be the beacon for all conservative efforts before the court, eagerly writing dissenting opinions throughout the ‘90s and early 2000’s. And now that the Federalist Society bloc has taken over, he has been loud and proud in his conservative decisions, siding against labor, against a person’s bodily autonomy, against democracy, and more. This is his moment to shine, and with his age progressing day after day, his itching to get reactionary rulings fixed before he goes is likely only to grow stronger.

REACTIONARY REVOLUTION

It isn’t just Sam Alito and Clarence Thompson we should be worried about, though. The Federalist Society also produced Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. And, even though Roberts isn’t a Federalist alum, he’s still very much in the conservative camp. There is a solid 6-3 imbalance on SCOTUS right now, favoring the radical conservatives. Sure, Roberts can be swayed here and there, but it isn’t enough to make a dent. What is underfoot is a conscious rebellion against a perceived liberal administrative state. The conservative establishment hates what it sees as a regulatory system. It identifies freedom with the freedom to exploit. Regulations curb exploitation, and therefore must go. The Federalist Society has worked decades trying to get their preferred legal minds behind benches, and now they’ve succeeded. It’s a revolution, whether they admit it or not. In fact, they have said it. Kevin Roberts, head of the radically conservative Heritage Foundation, said so himself. “Americans in 2024 are in the process of carrying out the second American Revolution to take power back from the elites and despotic bureaucrats.” He said these remarks in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed in an official capacity. Radical right-wing conservatives are calling it a revolution! Why do the rest of us not take them at their word and react accordingly? It’s the kind of top-down revolution that reactionaries love. And it won’t stop until we take back control of our courts.

Will you see it as such? Will you accept that there is a quiet reactionary revolution happening under our noses? There is little time left. They have already turned back labor laws, regulation laws, sexual orientation and bodily autonomy laws. What will it take for you to not just open your eyes, but step up? We only have one tool that cannot be taken away, our voice. 

Join the Democratic Socialists of America. Help us combat conservative offensives and liberal paralysis. There is no one coming to save us but us. We can only do it together.

The post Conservative Justices are Waging a Reactionary Revolution appeared first on Pine & Roses.

by Gregory Lebens-Higgins

This month the United States will observe the Fourth of July, our annual celebration of “freedom.” Undeniably, it’s worth paying tribute to the sloughing off of hereditary monarchy, a form of government which “ha[d] laid . . . the world in blood and ashes,” according to Founding Father Thomas Paine. Yet the continuation of slavery and settler colonialism following the victory over these “crowned ruffians” constitutes no state of freedom.

The 2024 presidential election is pitched as a battle for the maintenance of American freedom. According to a recent email from the Biden campaign, “Trump and MAGA Republicans have an ambitious laundry list of unconstitutional and authoritarian ‘tasks’ with one goal in mind: to take away our fundamental freedoms and destroy democracy as we know it.” 

At what point did America become free? Freedom is denied to countless people incarcerated in a racialized prison system representing a continuation of slavery. Freedom is denied to victims of U.S. foreign policy attempting to flee their homeland. Freedom is denied to all who are forced to sell their labor to survive. While these circumstances persist, we do not live in a free society. As labor leader Eugene Debs recognized, “While there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

The freedoms offered by political elites today are a limited set of bourgeois freedoms. They mimic an ideological commitment to processes and institutions supposedly designed to deliver freedom, while upholding material conditions that perpetuate exploitation and the division of society into unequal classes. When one of these freedoms conflicts with this state of affairs, it is the freedom that is sacrificed. “Free speech” deployed in opposition to U.S. imperialism, for example, is met with brutal repression, employment consequences, and actual canceling. This is not new—for speaking against the First World War, Eugene Debs was sentenced to imprisonment.

The one freedom that is truly fundamental to the capitalist order is free trade. As Marx recognized, “[capital] has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade.” 

Any remaining freedoms are limited to individualist terms, defined by consumer choice. As critical theorist Herbert Marcuse argued, these choices provide only the illusion of freedom: “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves. Free choice among a wide variety of goods and services does not signify freedom if these goods and services sustain social controls over a life of toil and fear—that is, if they sustain alienation.” Workers are free to sell their labor power to the employer of their choosing, but they are compelled to do so, and to further surrender their freedoms once they step foot in the workplace. 

This hegemonic capitalist ideology is proselytized by a ruling class seeking to convince workers there is nothing better to hope for. Much of the working class has absorbed these lessons, developing a false consciousness that identifies with their oppressor and perpetuates a system defined by exploitation and class division. On the Fourth of July, they can celebrate only the aesthetic freedoms of flying the American flag, grilling meat, drinking beer, and blowing stuff up. 

Individualist definitions of freedom are easily perverted for reactionary demands. In the hands of American conservatives (frequently supported by liberals), they are transformed into tools of oppression. Racial segregation, same-sex marriage, and patriotic indoctrination have all been defended in terms of “freedom.” To reactionaries, freedom is a zero-sum game: Freedom must be hoarded by a white, patriarchal, and cis-gender society lest it be appropriated by immigrants, feminists, and queers.

True freedom cannot be realized under capitalism. As Marx identified, “In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labor which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production.” We will celebrate an actually free society only once production is reoriented towards meeting necessity, rather than generating profit. 

Such freedoms as are enjoyed by workers today—leisure time following an eight-hour day, weekends, compensated retirement, and medical care—have only come as the result of generations of struggle. In the face of violent pushback, unions captured these pockets of freedom from the workplace. We must now recall this militancy, and continue this struggle until the sphere of freedom has broken free from the chains of capital.

The post The Perversion of Freedom first appeared on Rochester Red Star.