Twice Wrong on Obama

Earlier, I wrote in these pages that Obama's election along with a solid Democratic majority in the Senate could lead to a dramatic change in the Supreme Court. I envisioned him appointing men and women whose political and legal views would echo those of former Chief Justice Earl Warren's, a William Brennan, or Thurgood Marshall.

But I was wrong -- Obama's support of the new wiretapping and surveillance act, his non-opposition to capital punishment, his criticism of the recent Supreme Court case that refused to apply the death penalty where a child's rape was involved, were both shocking and surprising.

But then I went back to his book and speeches. I thought he had changed positions.

I was wrong again. He had been saying the same disturbing things before. Because he taught constitutional law and discussed these issues before, it is clear his view are deeply felt.

Then, I thought more of his organizing background and his influence. He describes one of his more important mentors as Saul Alinsky, the legendary teacher of organizing movements.
Organizing is arrived at by consensus, Alinsky taught. It did not matter what the result was -- once you organized around an issue, the movement could start and then you could go in to larger issues. But consensus, rather than any particular position, always means getting pushed toward the center on every issue. Alinsky told college students, if you need an issue to start to organize on campus, and there is a lot of gum sticking on the cement pathways, then organize around that issue. One of the results of his technique was that many movements he helped had far right positions.

I remembered talks I had with Alinsky. For years I worked with one of his more successful students, Cesar Chavez. Chavez seized every issue and used that to organize the farm workers. But Chavez was goal oriented, not consensus oriented.

Obama will not get consensus if he pushes for the kinds of justices I have mentioned. There will be from 30 or 44 votes against another Warren, Brennan or Marshall. Therefore we will not get those justices. We will get slightly liberal centrists -- insufficient to balance the hard right Gang of Four, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts, that will dominate the Court for decades. They may be to the right of Ruth Ginsberg, who amongst other things, did a good deal of work for the ACLU and David Souter.

Justice Kennedy, the swing vote in the child rape case, joined a position too liberal for Obama. The worst case scenario would be someone with Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence. But I can't imagine that.

Obama had been the most liberal voter in the Senate. But unless a force develops that can push Obama way from what I now understand are his objectionable long held positions, his election may not dramatically affect this Court. And that's awful.