Christopher Leonard, the author of Kochland, wrote an opinion article for The New York Times in which he explains that the big winner in the nomination and likely confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett is Charles Koch. Koch has invested for decades in his libertarian project of freeing corporations from regulations and mandates. Koch is also a major supporter of school vouchers. Barrett was recommended to Trump by the conservative Federalist Society, which Koch funds.
Leonard begins:
Charles Koch has activated his political network to support Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, and to tip the scales on her nomination battle in the U.S. Senate. While much of the commentary about Judge Barrett’s nomination has focused on the real prospect that Roe v. Wade may be undermined or overturned, Mr. Koch has other concerns. Judge Barrett’s nomination is the latest battleground in his decades-long war to reshape American society in a way that ensures that corporations can operate with untrammeled freedom. It may be a pivotal one.
Since the early 1970s, Mr. Koch has sought to dismantle most federal regulatory institutions, and the federal courts have been central to that battle. In 1974, Mr. Koch gave a blistering speech to a libertarian think tank, called the Institute for Humane Studies, in which he outlined his vision of the American regulatory state, and the strategy he would employ over the ensuing decades to realize that vision. On the list of government interventions he condemned were “confiscatory taxation, wage and price controls, commodity allocations programs, trade barriers, restrictions on foreign investments, so-called equal opportunity requirements, safety and health regulations, land use controls, licensing laws, outright government ownership of businesses and industries.” As if that list were not exhaustive enough, he added “… and many more interventions.” In short, Charles Koch believes that an unregulated free market is the only sustainable structure for human society.
To achieve his goal, Mr. Koch has built an influence network with three arms: a phalanx of lobbyists; a constellation of think tanks and university programs; and Americans For Prosperity, a grass-roots army of political activists. And shaping the U.S. judiciary has been part of Mr. Koch’s strategy from the beginning. In that 1974 speech, he recommended strategy of “strategically planned litigation” to test the regulatory authority of government agencies. Such lawsuits could make their way to the Supreme Court, where justices could set precedent. In the 1990s, he focused on lower-level judges, funding a legal institute that paid for judges to attend junkets at a Utah ski resort and Florida beachfront properties; the judges attended seminars on the importance of market forces in society and were warned against consideration of “junk science” — like specific methods to measure the effects of pollution — that plaintiffs used to prove corporate malfeasance.
Mr. Koch also sought to influence the judiciary at the federal level. Between 1997 and 2017, the Koch brothers gave more than $6 million to the Federalist Society, a nonprofit institute that recruits libertarian and conservative judges for the federal judiciary, according to a tally by the activist group Greenpeace.
Mr. Koch’s efforts on the Supreme Court intensified after Donald Trump’s election, when a Republican-controlled Senate opened the way to install judges who could tip the court’s ideological balance. Americans for Prosperity undertook national campaigns to support President Trump’s previous Supreme Court nominees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. A.F.P. said the Kavanaugh campaign alone — fliers, digital ads and staff for phone banking and door knocking — ran into “seven figures.” Now, Americans for Prosperity is doing the same for Judge Barrett. A.F.P. activists are pressuring U.S. senators in several states, with a particular eye toward vulnerable Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin. The group is also working in Alaska, where Republican Lisa Murkowski has given mixed signals about whether she is willing to vote on Judge Barrett’s nomination before the next president is elected.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
Here is Sheldon Whitehouse Presentation yesterday 10/13 on Dark Money Amy Barrett & Friends
I watched his presentation yesterday. I almost felt like cheering, but I doubt all the corporate owned politicians cared much. They’re too busy counting their money.
Here’s more from the Washington Post today about the “Council for National Policy” who have their shorts in knots about the possibility of losing the election.
SNIPS: “’We work very closely — CAP does and then we at CPI also — with the Office of Presidential Personnel at the White House to try and get good conservatives in the positions because we see what happens when we don’t vet these people,’ she said.
“Bovard cited as examples two figures who testified against Trump last year in the House impeachment hearings: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, former director for European affairs at the National Security Council, and Marie Yovanovitch, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
“‘All these people that led the impeachment against President Trump shouldn’t have been there in the first place,’ Bovard told the CNP audience. ‘We want to prevent that from happening.’”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/council-national-policy-video/2020/10/14/367f24c2-f793-11ea-a510-f57d8ce76e11_story.html?wpmk=1&wpisrc=al_news__alert-exclusive–alert-national&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert&pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.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.3wWL4f3-hNXNA2bzAd9eR3RxE8pT3UMPFDUVYY34A0E
CORP = Corporate Owned Republican Party
Courting Courts
Court was courted
By the CORP
CORP reported
To the corp
Course of courts
Was corps’
Of course
CORPS — of COURSE
LMAO! Yes.
The whole nomination process has become a charade.
The most pathetic part is that everyone on both sides of the aisle knows it’s just a dog and pony show but pretends otherwise because they believe the public believe it’s not.
And the idea that Barrett will NOT be confirmed is just a joke. It’s all a show, including the (pretend) “principled, considered” stance of Senators like Murkowski.
These people apparently believe most of the American public are idiots.
And the really sad part is, they just might be right.
Grin and Barrett
Grin and Barrett
Irish dance
Like a ferret
Down the pants
Grin and Barrett
Grin and Barrett
Irish dance
Like a ferret
Down the pants
Barrett fights
With rope a dope
Ferret bites
But millions hope
Barrett’s youngest child who is 8 years old, has special needs- no children since that birth. Have Amy and her husband found effective birth control? If so, it’s unlikely that it came from the clinic the USCCB funded with $2 million.
I wonder if the Catholic Church accepts a ferret in the pants as a method of natural birth control.
Seems like they would.
I bet it’s the most effective method ferrets down.
Then again, it’s probably far TOO effective for the Pope’s liking.
Whitehouse’s presentation should be reblogged everywhere. I also felt like cheering. He was Rachel Maddow on steroids.
But did someone hold an election where Koch was running for Capitalist in Chief, and I didn’t know about it? CBK
Shared on Farcebook —
LOL
She strikes me more as a wine type, but I’m still waiting to hear if Barrett likes beer.
I wish someone would ask her.
Amy Beer it
Amy beer it
On the Court?
Want to hear it
In report
Brett and Barrett
I’m dying to hear
If Barrett likes beer
Like Brett, or if wine
To Barrett is fine
This brings up a point where many people are still confused — they’ve been led to believe the Big Fuss is all about religion but the main religion it’s really about is Capitalism, in other words:
Moneytheism
Capitalicism
DOS Kapitalicism
John Awbrey I think you are right in your analysis; though our friend Linda has some truth . . .
. . . insofar as there ARE among us the ideological, right-wing ultra-conservative, power-protecting . . . even the greedy who call themselves Christian (pseudo-Christians fooling themselves and/or others) and who are political bedfellows of the unrepentant rich. It won’t be the truly religious-but- misguided who destroy the country, though they do have a hand in it.
“Good Grief! The Blacks and Hispanics are getting wind of the power of the vote!” Indeed, “What would Jesus do?”
I don’t know where that leaves freedom of religion, but there it is. In that context, I think the so-called religious have forgotten themselves and lost their way; and the rich power-mongers like the Koch and Walton empires have nothing but hubris, fear, and hate holding themselves together. CBK
Jon,
Two of the 3 legal issues Whitehouse focused on were same sex marriage and Roe v. Wade. For blog readers, would you link those two to the capitalism motivation?
Sometimes truth is inconvenient. Denial is…
Linda Sometimes truth is more complex than we think (duh). Did you see Sen. Whitehouse’s presentation (D-RI)? Also, I don’t like it that so many on the court are Catholic either; and I think Barrett is well-meaning but woefully unaware of her own ideological foundations.
But what you seem to miss is that the Catholics on the Court are all so-called conservative and none are progressive. Why not? Does that distinction give you a hint about what’s really going on there, behind the robes, so to speak?
But conservatism in its present form is a twisted oxymoron . . . and a complex animal. If we could drive a clear line between the power of oligarchs and the power of the severe right wing Christian groups, e.g., the Catholics on the Bench, and if the power center keeps going the way it has, you would not see a theocracy emerging, but rather a Stalin-like power hub throwing ideological crumbs to “religious people” and churches to help control the pews, IF religion were allowed expression at all.
I don’t doubt different brands of totalitarianism are at the core of many of those who vie for power, regardless of their religious background; however, in my view, a religious totalitarianism (theocracy) is not in the picture in the U.S. insofar as those who gain economic and political power by destroying democracy are more like Stalin, as an end-run, than the Pope or other religious leadership.
At any rate AND AGAIN, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are both progressive Catholics–so they poke a big hole in your argument–and both have an understanding of what a SECULAR democracy means; so that not all Catholics are RIGHT-WING Catholics . . . most who apparently abhor their own founder.
They are a distortion of Christianity and, my guess is, they don’t recognize political crumbs thrown at them when they see them. When choices are to be made by the powerfl, there’s lots of room under the bus. CBK
It’s very curious that Judge Barrett is using Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan’s words to defend her not having to answer questions. It’s almost as though she’s saying, “Hey! You senators on the left! I’m using the words of your own justices to refuse to answer any questions.” She didn’t have to frame her refusal to answer questions in this way. In doing this, she shows her political views.
In my neck of the woods the go to response to difficult questions is tho answer, I reject the premise of your question.
She was coached.
The answer she gave on climate change was the very same one Republicans have been giving forever.
I’m not a scientist [well, duh] . I know what climate is, bjt I m not sure I have a view on that”
These hearings have become a joke. The nominees behave like robots spewing out canned answers.
That climate change answer hurt her
Here’s what NPR claimed about Barrett
“At one point, Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn asked her to show what notes she was using to prep for answers and she held up a blank notepad, demonstrating that she was capable of talking for hours on end about a broad range of legal issues without any notes.”
Well, no, it didn’t demonstrate that at all.
Given that she never responded in any significant way to any of the Democrat’s questions and basically gave the same pat answer “I can’t answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me or the President”, the fact that she had no notes is really not overly impressive.
Quite frankly, I don’t believe she would have been able to answer even if she had possessed the best notes from the finest legal minds on the planet.
Quite apart from her extreme right wing views, I don’t think she possesses the intellect to be a Supreme Court justice.
She is certainly no John Roberts.
More like a Brett K.
I kept waiting for her to say I like beer.
She has been groomed by the Federalist Society.