Heather Digby Parton’s Salon post, “GOP’s sales-pitch swindle: Why Dems need to push Obamacare harder: When Republicans do something, they sell it big time. With the left tentative on the ACA, here’s what’s at stake” addresses a chronic Democratic failure. Parton explains “Once again the Democrats, afraid of being associated with something unpopular, distanced themselves from their own accomplishments rather than seeing the long-term advantage in being the party that brought people “freedom plus groceries.” In this case that would be the liberty afforded to every individual when they are able to move to change jobs, start a business or otherwise operate as free individuals without fear of losing their health insurance — and “groceries” meaning a government that delivers a bit of financial security in an increasingly unstable economic environment.”
In his New York Times letter from Washington,” Albert R. Hunt explains why “Some business interests and entrenched congressional politicians argue the party’s right wing is in retreat. Not so.” Says Hunt, “Many of the more establishment Republicans who prevailed in primaries had moved decidedly to the right. The Republican agenda on Capitol Hill largely is framed by the most conservative of the conservatives.”
In his Washington Monthly post, ““Temporary” Insanity from the Hard Right?,”TDS Managing Editor Ed Kilgore puts it this way: “it’s important to remember that on the really big issues, movement conservatives are pushing against an open door; the GOP has already conceded much of what they’re being told to do, particularly on matters of core ideology rather than tactics.”
Re Thomas B. Edsall’s NYT Opinion piece, “The Coming Democratic Schism,” when has there not been profound differences about priorities, often generational? The Democratic Party could also evolve toward greater unity of its diverse constituencies, with better rank and file education. Young and old share a common interest in secure retirement for all citizens, so aging people don’t have to work and take entry-level jobs away from younger workers.
Kilgore writes of Edsall’s reliance on Pew Research categories: “…Some of the questions (some from the Pew “typology” report in June, some from a study commissioned by the libertarians at Reason, some from a couple of academic papers) about the economy and the role of government have the familiar problem of offering false choices between private sector and government “solutions” to economic and social challenges, as though one excludes the other…I would warn that his adoption of the Pew typology categories of “Solid Liberals” and “Next Generation Left” as the two pro-Democratic groups most at odds with each other gives the dubious impression one is passing from the scene while the other represents the future of liberal politics…Truth is Pew constructed these typological groups based on ideological and voting-behavior coherence and then slapped on the labels. Perhaps there’s a true trend line here, but the impression a lot of people may get that “Next Generation Left” means millennials is entirely unfounded. It’s really not that simple.”
Put Harold Meyerson’s American Prospect post “Why the Democrats Need to Take Sides” on your ‘read and distribute’ list. A teaser: “Bettering the economic lot of their constituents–particularly since those constituents are represented disproportionately among those Americans who now call themselves lower-class–will require the Democrats to do something they haven’t really contemplated, and have consistently avoided, since the 1930s: taking a side, with all that entails, in a class war.”
Class war, or at least conflict, may be unavoidable in these times of growing economic inequality. But E. J. Dionne, Jr. discusses prospects for Democrats nurturing a “pro-business populism.” It’s possible that enhanced class solidarity can make room for a thriving entrepreneurial culture that supports business innovation and creativity — perhaps a bridge between the traditional progressive Democratic values and young voters’ aspirations to succeed, referenced by Edsall’s argument noted above.
Here’s an interesting stat, from Kyle Kondik’s Crystal Ball post “The Hidden Barrier to a Republican Senate Majority: The GOP has had little recent success defeating Democratic incumbents“: “Incredibly, in the 16 Senate elections since then [1980], the Republicans have flipped only 12 Democratic Senate seats where the incumbent was running again.”
Another indication that Sen. Elizabeth Warren has the Dems’ best quiver full of zingers, from her remarks at a Buckner, KY town hall: “Mitch McConnell believes that when it comes to a choice between protecting tax loopholes for billionaires or reducing student loan interest rates, he will work to protect every last dollar of every last tax loophole,” said Warren. “And then he tells students to dream a little smaller, to do with less and give up a little sooner.”

Less than half of Americans approve of the job the U.S. Supreme Court is doing, according to a new Gallup poll conducted July 7-10, reports Rebeca Rifkin of Gallup Politics:

Americans remain divided in their assessments of the U.S. Supreme Court, with 47% approving of the job it is doing, and 46% disapproving. These ratings are consistent with approval last September, when 46% approved and 45% disapproved, and rank among the lowest approval ratings for the court in Gallup’s 14-year trend.
Since Gallup began asking the question in 2000, Americans have typically been more likely to approve than to disapprove of the job the Supreme Court is doing. However, the margin between the two has been narrowing since its recent high point in 2009, and Americans were divided over the court in 2012 and again in 2013. Separate polling found that confidence in the Supreme Court also fell to record lows this year, as Americans’ confidence in all three branches of government is down.

It’s a partisan thing, as Rifkin notes. Numbers rise and fall in response to recent decisions, with Republican approval of the court spiking up in response to the Bush v. Gore, Hobby Lobby and abortion/contraception clinics buffer zone decisions, and Democratic approval tanking. The Democratic respondents high (68 percent) was reached after the decision upholding Obamacare. Rifkin did not note the numbers after the Citizens United decision.
While nearly 2/3 of the Supreme Court’s decisions this term have been unanimous, the high profile cases like Hobby Lobby tend to polarize public opinion. Regardless of how the public feels about the court, however, it’s not likely to become a pivotal issue for voters in the foreseeable future.
It would be interesting for Gallup or other pollsters to ask respondents how they feel about increasing the size of the court to 11, in order to make room for genuinely moderate justices.
It doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to increase the size of the Supreme Court. Article III authorizes the Congress to determine the number of justices. The U.S. started out with six justices, as a result of the Judiciary Act of 1789, grew to 7 in 1807, then 9 in 1837 and 10 in 1863. In 1866, however, the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 provided that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, reducing the size of the Court to 7 by attrition. The Court shrank by two seats until the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of justices again at nine, where it has remained unchanged.
FDR got into big trouble trying to “pack” the Supreme court, proposing to appoint a new justice for each incumbent Supreme Court justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused to retire — appointments which would continue until the court reached 15 justices. The political fallout was disastrous for Roosevelt.
The public may, indeed be somewhat wary about increasing the size of the court, which the Republicans would likely flog as “big government” liberalism. But FDR’s mistake may have been overreach — the maximum size of 15 he requested. A 2012 CBS/New York Times poll indicated that 60 percent of the public thought lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court justices is a “bad thing.,” with just 33 percent saying it was a good thing. Another indication that the public favors some reform of the high court is reflected in polls showing strong support for televising the proceedings.
Adding two justices might be more acceptable to the public, despite the certainty of an all-out GOP propaganda campaign against it. Nonetheless, it’s a needed discussion which might resonate in the current political climate — and one which Democrats should certainly lead the next time we get a landslide.

Melissa R. Michelson’s “How to increase voter turnout in communities where people have not usually participated in elections: Research brief” from the Scholars Strategy Network, (via Journalist’s Resource) offers some insightful observations, including: “Voter turnout among members of different groups of Americans varies widely, with Latinos and Asians generally lagging behind other groups. Blacks usually fall in between, with turnout usually ahead of other minorities but behind whites…Nonpartisan experiments have not shown that messages designed to appeal to ethnic or racial solidarities are any more effective than general appeals to “civic duty” or other broad concerns…For example, experiments conducted in cooperation with community organizations using “Green Jobs” or other non-racial issue-based appeals have successfully mobilized African American voters, while another experiment that stressed racial solidarity produced negligible increases in turnout.” Michaelson is co-author, with Lisa García Bedolla, of “Mobilizing Inclusion: Transforming the Electorate through Get-Out-the-Vote Campaigns,” which analyses “268 get-out-the-vote experiments conducted repeatedly across six electoral cycles from 2006 to 2008.” The book won the American Political Science Best Book Award for 2013.
Janet Hook’s “2014 Voter Turnout: GOP Has Advantage, But It’s Not 2010” in The Wall St. Journal notes “The Rhodes Cook Letter, a nonpartisan political report, has analyzed turnout in 25 states that had held primaries by the end of June and found that 9.66 million Republicans and 8.28 million Democrats had voted-a 1.38 million edge for the GOP…The Cook analysis found that 2014 turnout so far has fallen short of the tidal wave of interest in the 2010 midterms. So far, 17.6 million have voted in major party primaries this year, compared with 21.1 million at this point in 2010…That is a 16% drop, which Mr. Cook says could be “the voters’ way of saying to both the Democrats and Republicans, a pox on both your houses.”
Republicans have to defend 22 of the 36 governorships that are up for election this year. Normallty this would translate into a huge advantage for Dems. But the improving economy is helping many Republican governors, report Jonathan Martin and Nicholas Confessore in their New York Times article “G.O.P. Replays 2010 Strategy at State Level.” Worse, Democratic Governors Association Chairman Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont said his group expects to be outspent 2-1 buy the RGA, a discrepancy which you can help reduce right here.
Gov. Christie isn’t out of trouble yet, but he has managed his scandal effectively and continued to wield influence in his party, despite revelations that should be career-enders. CNN Politics’ Julian Zelizer explains how he has survived thus far.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren “is quickly becoming a top Democratic fundraiser and campaign powerhouse, hitting the road on behalf of candidates in key races the party will need to win to retain control of the U.S. Senate in November,” reports AP’s Steve LeBlanc.
Also at the Times, Jonathan Weisman reveals how Senate Republicans kill popular legislation, simply because it is being sponsored by Democrats they want to defeat in 2014. To cite just one example, 26 Republicans supported a successful filibuster of a widely-popular sportsman’s bill because it was being sponsored by Democratic Senator Kay Hagan. Dems hope the GOP blockade participants will be seen as obstructionists, while Republicans hope Sen. Hagan will be seen as ineffective.
AP’s Thomas Beaumont reports that the “Democrats Scour Records for Provocative Comments” in hopes of turning up game-changing gaffe’s.
But, at the National Journal, Emma Roller does a good job of putting into perspective “What Really Matters in Midterm Elections? Hint: it’s not gaffes.”

Mason Adams has an interesting Politco post, “Do Democrats Need a Bubba Strategy? The party shouldn’t give up on NASCAR voters, says Dave “Mudcat” Saunders.” Adams calls Saunders the Democrats’ “bubba whisperer.”One of Saunders’ insights: “The greatest problem in America is the disintegration of the middle class,” Saunders says, and “unless you’re super-rich, you probably feel like you’re getting screwed. That feeling transcends geography…America’s become more concentrated. There are as many rednecks–or let me say it like this, rural-thinking people–on Route 1 in Alexandria as there are in all five coal-producing counties of Virginia.” Saunders argues that Democratic candidates “don’t have to be from the culture,” but they do have to respect it and show some appreciation for it…”It’s just too easy to say if you go out to the culture you’ll get them. Democrats have to understand the culture,” says Saunders. “They have to understand what people go through.”
Emily Deruy’s Fusion.net post “Will Confusion Over Voter ID Laws Hurt Youth Turnout?” sheds light on a cornerstone strategy of the NC GOP.
At Sabato’s Crystal Ball Alan I. Abramowitz analyses the Pew Research report on polarization in political opinion, and finds: “Both parties are less popular today than they were 30 or 40 years ago, but that’s almost entirely due to a decline in ratings of the opposing party by Democratic and Republican identifiers…ratings of the opposing party have declined substantially, falling from the upper-40s during the late 1970s and 1980s to the mid 20s in 2012…Between the late 1970s and 2012, the proportion of Democrats with a positive opinion of the Democratic Party and a negative opinion of the Republican Party increased from 32% to 71%, while the proportion of Republicans with a positive opinion of the Republican Party and a negative opinion of the Democratic Party increased from 39% to 65%.” All of which lends credence to the argument that turning out the base merits more party resources than persuasion.
The Latino coalition “‘Movimiento Hispano’ to Engage, Increase Latino and Millennial Voter Turnout for Midterm Elections,” reports Michael Oleaga at The Latin Post. Oleaga notes, “Movimiento Hispano’s goal is to get “historical numbers” of Latino turnout at voting locations. The campaign aims to register more than 52,000 Latino voters and mobilize over 100,000 Latino voters.”
Greg Sargent explores the ramifications of President Obama going big and loud with unilateral action to ease deportations.
Fans of political invective should not miss Charles Pierce’s latest Esquire post (via Reader Supported News). Pierce burns NYT columnist, “His Eminence Ross Cardinal Douthat” a new one, in response to Douthat’s “Pecksnifian dweebery” in warning gay people “that they ought not to celebrate their right to marry quite so … gaily” and “crowing just a bit over the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby.”
Dems should be more vocal as advocates for voting rights for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It’s the right thing to do, and the number of people with such disabilities, plus their families, is not small.
Also at the Crystal Ball, Geoffrey Skelley takes a look at “2014 Races Where Third-Party and Independent Candidates Could Impact Outcomes,” and provides capsule descriptions of the situation in races for AK Senate; HI Governor; ME Governor; MT Senate; NC Senate and SC Governor. Regarding the marquee NC Senate race, Skelley notes, “Now the question is, could Libertarian Sean Haugh impact the outcome in the Tar Heel State? Early surveys seem to show him doing exactly that — Haugh is polling at around 9% in the polling averages and attracting national attention with some homemade YouTube videos. History has shown that non-major party candidates with large early support typically fade as November gets closer. However, it’s possible that Haugh winds up becoming a “none of the above” option for voters who are particularly dissatisfied with the major-party candidates, as aforementioned Libertarian Robert Sarvis did in the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial contest between now-Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) and former state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli…But in a very tight race, Haugh’s take might be consequential.
One of the better headlines of the week.

A new report by Democracy North Carolina shines a light on the geography of suppression of African American voters in North Carolina. The report challenges the arguments of Republican lawyers who told a federal judge yesterday that the state’s new voting laws have not discriminated against Black voters because their turnout increased in the spring primaries by 44,500 between 2010 and 2014. However, argues Democracy North Carolina:

But an analysis of county-by-county voting patterns by the nonpartisan watchdog group Democracy North Carolina shows that focusing on the statewide total distorts large differences experienced by voters depending on where they live…Yes, more African Americans voted in the 2014 midterm primary than in the 2010 primary, but black turnout decreased in 8 of the 15 counties where African Americans are over 39% of the registered voters – that is, it decreased in the percent of registered black voters who voted and also decreased in the actual number of votes cast.

The report goes on to note that “Two thirds (66%) of the increased number of votes cast by black voters statewide came from just 7 counties where there were hot races and/or stronger Early Voting opportunities than offered in 2010.” Further, in Mecklenburg County, which had the state’s largest increase in African American voters (8,282), early voting sites increased from 1 to 13 during the last four years and there was also a hotly-contested Democratic congressional primary race. Guilford county, which had he second-largest increase, also had substantially improved early voting and an even more competitive race.
The combination of close races and expanded early voting accounts for a substantial portion of the increase of African American voter turnout in other counties that reported improvement.
Additionally, adds Democracy North Carolina,

Ironically, the State/GOP’s brief emphasizes the dominant influence of election competitiveness and investments in grassroots mobilization on voter participation in order to discount the impact of Early Voting, Same-Day Registration, and other procedures on the record turnouts in 2008 and 2012. But then the State doesn’t want to acknowledge that the increase in turnout of African- American voters from 2010 to 2014 is also heavily influenced by changes in the competitiveness of local and Congressional elections and the resources invested in grassroots mobilization…In truth, turnout is affected by access to the polls AND competitiveness of elections.

North Carolina still has what some experts believe is the nation’s most suppressive voter laws targeting African Americans and Latinos. It is encouraging, however, that the ‘Moral Monday’ movement has been able to mobilize a powerful challenge to voter suppression and other regressive laws, and the movement is now spreading to other states.
For Democrats the implications are clear. The mobilization of African American voters, with expanded and highly-leveraged early voting is critical for re-electing Sen. Kay Hagan, and perhaps preventing a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. The great work provided by the multi-racial Moral Monday movement provides a potent template for other states which are experiencing the rash of voter suppression laws. No matter what the courts ultimately conclude, energetic GOTV rooted in moral fervor and modern techniques can often overcome the worst suppression laws. Yet, as the Democracy North Carolina report shows, those laws still target people of color with burdensome voting rules and they must be invalidated.

NYT columnist Charles M. Blow rounds up the latest pundit predictions re the battle for control of the U.S. Senate and sums it up: “Who will win control is at the moment basically a tossup, but Republicans get the nod by narrow statistical margins.” Given the exposure of Democratic incumbents and candidates in pro-Romney states, it could be worse, and none of the top prognosticators is ruling out an upset.
Lynn Vavreck explains “Why Polls Can Sometimes Get Things So Wrong.”
Phillip Rucker reports on the launching of “every town for Gun Safety,” by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg — “the first big step by Bloomberg — who has committed to spending $50 million of his personal fortune this year to build a national grass-roots movement that will pressure lawmakers to pass more restrictive gun laws — to devise a political strategy heading into the November elections…Bloomberg has promised to spend more than double the roughly $20 million the NRA spends annually on political campaigns. Still, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it will be difficult for Everytown to counter the political network and clout that the NRA, with its 5 million dues-paying members, has built up over decades.”
Mighty big stretch here, especially assuming the tea party would suddenly come to it’s senses, such as they are.
Also at The Times, Paul Krugman’s “Beliefs, Facts and Money: Conservative Delusions About Inflation” takes on a different kind of failed prognostication, about the supposed ill-effects of monetary activism: “In fact, hardly any of the people who predicted runaway inflation have acknowledged that they were wrong, and that the error suggests something amiss with their approach. Some have offered lame excuses; some, following in the footsteps of climate-change deniers, have gone down the conspiracy-theory rabbit hole, claiming that we really do have soaring inflation, but the government is lying about the numbers (and by the way, we’re not talking about random bloggers or something; we’re talking about famous Harvard professors). Mainly, though, the currency-debasement crowd just keeps repeating the same lines, ignoring its utter failure in prognostication.”
Looks like Dems have a strong candidate to take away Republican Rep. Michael Grimm’s House seat.
Just to wrap it up, Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley have an 8-point takeaway post-mortem on Thad Cochran’s Mississippi victory.
E. J. Dionne, Jr. has an interesting case for challenging the constitutional “originalists'” argument that stokes the GOP’s hard right turn. Dionne notes: “In the May issue of the Boston University Law Review, Joseph R. Fishkin and William E. Forbath of the University of Texas School of Law show that at key turning points in our history (the Jacksonian era, the Populist and Progressive moments and the New Deal), opponents of rising inequality made strong arguments “that we cannot keep our constitutional democracy — our republican form of government — without constitutional restraints against oligarchy and a political economy that maintains a broad middle class, accessible to everyone.”…Their article is called “The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution,” though Forbath told me that he and Fishkin may give the book they’re writing on the topic the more upbeat title “The Constitution of Opportunity.” Their view is that by empowering the wealthy in our political system, Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United directly contradict the Constitution’s central commitment to shared self-rule…The idea of a Constitution of Opportunity is both refreshing and relevant. For too long, progressives have allowed conservatives to monopolize claims of fealty to our unifying national document. In fact, those who would battle rising economic inequalities to create a robust middle class should insist that it’s they who are most loyal to the Constitution’s core purpose. Broadly shared well-being is essential to the framers’ promise that “We the people” will be the stewards of our government.”
Has it come to this? A Libertarian pizza delivery guy may be the key to Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan holding her senate seat– and Dems keeping their senate majority.

At The New York Times Jackie Calmes writes “The June jobs report — showing 288,000 new hires, the unemployment rate down to 6.1 percent and positive revisions to the April and May jobs numbers — gave the White House and congressional Democrats grounds for optimism.” Calmes notes Ian Shepherdson, chief economist of Pantheon Macroeconomics : “All the signs are pointing toward strong payroll growth…It’s increasingly very difficult for the naysayers to argue that it’s not very good out there.” Shepherdson predicted that by November, the unemployment rate would be below 6 percent. Despite the usual cautionary notes about the jobs report being just a snapshot and the President’s lagging approval ratings, adds Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, “An improving economy is a twofer…It raises the president’s approval ratings, altering the environment in ways that help us, and directly improves the prospects of each Democratic candidate.”
Georgia Republicans appear to be nervous about The New Georgia Project, which “is working methodically to register 120,000 Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters in the state – the biggest voter registration drive in 20 years,” explains former NAACP head Benjamin Todd Jealous. Elizabeth Rawlins of WTOC writes that “the Secretary of State’s Office does not recognize the New Georgia Project as a non-profit organization.” Yet, it is part of Third Sector Development, a legitimate nonprofit.
Michael Tomasky makes the case for paid family medical leave as the centerpiece of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
NYT’s Jackie Calmes also has an excellent update on Democratic efforts to leverage single women voters for the midterm elections. Calmes explains why: “Half of all adult women over the age of 18 are unmarried — 56 million, up from 45 million in 2000 — and now account for one in four people of voting age. (Adult Hispanics eligible to vote, a group that gets more attention, number 25 million this year.) Single women have become Democrats’ most reliable supporters, behind African-Americans: In 2012, two-thirds of single women who voted supported President Obama. Among married women, a slim majority supported Mitt Romney.” However, “In the 2012 presidential election, 58 percent of single women voted. This fall that could slide to 39 percent, a one-third drop, according to projections from the nonpartisan Voter Participation Center, which for a decade has focused on unmarried women.” Calmes notes that Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan sums up her re-election strategy as “heels on the ground.”
Toward that end, DCCC Executive Director Kelly Ward has announced the launching of a new voter-mobilization program, “Rosie,” (recalling ‘Rosie the Riveter’), which stands for “Re-engaging Our Sisters in Elections.” also, reports Calmes, the Voter Participation Center has already provided registration materials for single women in 24 states, including NC, and will follow up through the fall. In addition, Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood’s action “will spend $3 million each on their top priority: Ms. Hagan’s race.” Calmes notes, “Of Planned Parenthood’s 140,000 members statewide, 50,000 joined since Republicans took power in 2011.”
Dems have an interesting candidate for Texas A.G., who has a pretty good name for the statewide race, Sam Houston. Even better, he is running against a Republican with serious ethics problems, state Sen. Ken Paxton, who has been fined by the Texas State Securities Board “for acting as the unregistered representative of an investment adviser,” reports Edgar Walters at The Times.
Speaking of dicey Republicans, check out this Daily Kos report on Maine’s twisted Governor LePage. if Maine voters don’t dump him, maybe they need a new state motto, along the lines of “Crazy in the pursuit of politics is no vice.”
It comes too late for this year. But going forward Nicholas Kristoff’s idea to make July 4th a day of celebration of public investments as an expression of what Americans can do when we are united around solving problems merits support. Anything we can do to illuminate and publicize the numerous benefits of public works is worth the effort. As Kristoff concludes, “after all, there’s not much point in saving on taxes to buy a Porsche when the roads all have potholes.”
Regarding infrastructure upgrades, Kos’s Laura Clawson spotlights President Obama’s challenge: “Well, there’s some things we could be doing right now that would make a huge difference. When I was at that bridge in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., yesterday, we were talking about the fact that we’ve got $2 trillion of deferred maintenance: roads, bridges, an air-traffic control system that’s creaky, an electrical grid that wastes too much energy and is highly inefficient, and we could be putting hundreds of thousands of folks back to work right now and not only put a big boost to the economy in the short term, but also lay the foundation for economic competitiveness in the long term. That creates a lot of middle-class jobs. The challenge we have is not that we don’t know what to do. The problem is that we’ve got a Congress right now that’s been saying no to proposals that would make a difference.” And I would add that getting our internet infrastructure up to other nations’ standards would also be a worthy project for America’s unemployed.

The Hobby Lobby decision will likely go down in the annals of political mistakes as one of the most poorly-reasoned high court rulings of the last century, and it should be condemned for it’s assault on worker rights, as well as reproductive rights. But it did overshadow another disastrous Supreme Court ruling in Harris v. Quinn, which the New York Times op-ed by Cynthia Eastlund and William E. Fortbath describes as a “salvo on unions” in “the war on workers.” Further, opine the authors:

…Though its decision in Harris v. Quinn was narrow, saying that, in some cases, unions could not collect fees from one particular class of public employees who did not want to join, its language suggests that this may be the court’s first step toward nationalizing the “right to work” gospel by embedding it in constitutional law.
The petitioners in Harris were several home-care workers who did not want to join a union, though a majority of their co-workers had voted in favor of joining one. Under Illinois law, they were still required to contribute their “fair share” to the costs of representation — a provision, known as an “agency fee,” that is prohibited in “right to work” states.
The ability of unions to collect an agency fee reflects a constitutional balance that has governed American labor for some 40 years: Workers can’t be forced to join a union or contribute to its political and ideological activities, but they can be required to pay for the cost of the union’s collective bargaining and contract-administration activities.
The majority in Harris saw things differently. Making workers pay anything to a union they oppose is in tension with their First Amendment rights — “something of an anomaly,” in the words of the majority. But the real anomaly lies in according dissenters a right to refuse to pay for the union’s services — services that cost money to deliver, and that put money in the pockets of all employees.
Once selected by a majority of workers in a bargaining unit, a union becomes the exclusive representative, with a duty to fairly represent all of them. That is the bedrock of our public and private sector labor laws.

The decision cements the current Supreme Court majority’s rep as the most anti-labor high court justices in memory of just about anyone still alive. That’s just fine with them. Worker rights are not anywhere near their collective radar screen. Anything to weaken unions — and undermine working peoples’ living standards — is OK with them. They are in-yer-face one-percenters, smug and comfy in their untouchable perches.
For Democrats, it’s another sobering reminder of the folly of giving Supreme Court nominees a pass on their economic ideology. Most of the confirmation battles in the post-war period have centered around nominees’ ethical issues or positions on racial discrimination, reproductive rights and social issues, all important concerns.
But the current majority has given a green light to ‘free riders,’ who want to benefit from union contracts without paying any union dues. The decision is aimed at destroying unions, even though they know it will exacerbate widening economic inequality. From now on Democrats ought to refuse to give any Supreme Court nominees a free ride on their economic philosophy and “Bork” any anti-union nominees without reservation.

If anyone had remaining doubts about how meddlesome the phony ‘strict-constructionalists’ on the U.S. Supreme Court are willing to get, the Hobby Lobby ruling should set them straight. Here we have the highly-partisan Republican majority of the Supreme Court in solid agreement that your employer can cherry-pick and eliminate coverage for medical procedures you and your physician choose. Why? Because your employer’s religious beliefs trump yours even though it’s your body, silly.
Never mind the First Amendment bit about respecting no establishment of religion. Nor is it important that you’re paying for your preferred medical care out of your earnings and benefits. Your boss gets to veto your medical choices that you pay for with your money.
Don’t buy any of the crap about the narrowness or ‘nuances’ of the Hobby Lobby ruling. It established a precedent that begs to be broadened, and this is a High Court majority that is willing to go there. It’s only a matter of time.
No one should be shocked either, that the court’s right-wing (the term ‘conservative’ would be an insult to real conservative jurists in this context) majority is oblivious/hostile to worker rights. They have demonstrated that proclivity at every opportunity.
And it will likely get worse if Republicans win a senate majority in November. If they do, they will prevent vacancies on the court from being filled by any nominees who fit into the moderate-liberal spectrum.
In their Huffpollster post on “Reviewing the Polling on Hobby Lobby,” Mark Blumenthal and Ariel Edwards-Levy write that “Results depend on how you ask.” They quote from Aaron Blake’s post at The Fix:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that “closely held” companies with religious owners cannot be required to provide their employees with birth control if they have religious objections to it. Do the American people agree? Well, no. And yes. Contraception is one of those issues on which you can get vastly different opinions from the American people just by asking the question in a slightly different way….It suggests that Americans’ opinions on the topic are quite malleable and — by extension — pretty soft. If Americans can offer such different responses based on just a few words being changed in the question, they probably don’t feel all that strongly about the issue or haven’t really paid attention. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who feel very strongly. It just means they they are probably in the minority.

Blumenthal and Edwards-Levy report that an early June Gallup Poll indicates that confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court is at an all-time low (30 percent). Naturally, the poll failed to make a significant distinction between the Republican majority, which calls the shots, and the appointees of Democratic presidents, which is kind of the larger point. But it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to infer that most of the discontent is about the decisions of the majority.
That raises the possibility that Democrats can get some benefit, however small, from reminding voters what is at stake regarding the Supreme Court if Republicans win the senate. It’s not likely that such a focus on the court will sway many voters — it never has. But, in a close election, maybe, just maybe it could help mobilize single women voters in particular, who have the most to lose from a High Court that encourages employers to meddle in their medical care even more.
The Supreme Court of the United States has been dominated by politicized hacks since Bush v. Gore, although too many Dems have trod gingerly around the strong language needed to make it a front and center issue. The Hobby Lobby decision sends a clear warning that those days should be over. And if we needed an additional reminder that employer-linked insurance is a booby-trapped mess, and we really need to push harder for a single-payer system, here it is.

The Nation’s Ari Berman asks (via Moyers & Company) “Where Are the GOP Supporters of Voting Rights?” It’s a good question, and one which should leave the so-called “mainstream” Republicans, especially Thad Cochran, feeling more than a little ashamed. Double ditto for the conservative pundits whose silence on GOP voter suppression would shame Pravda columnists during the cold-war heyday.
Conservative campaign consultant Steve Adler, whose company furnishes the rVotes technology to some Republican candidates, explains “How a tiny GOP data firm helped David Brat win” at Campaigns & Elections, and notes “One of the most significant advantages Brat had against his entrenched and well-funded Republican opponent was, ironically, the same core, grassroots technology Democrats have been using for over a decade…In extreme cases, a razor sharp grassroots effort can make $200,000 more powerful on Election Day than an opponent’s $5 million.”
Sure, Cochran’s Mississippi upset was rooted in extraordinary circumstances, that can’t be so easily replicated, as Ed Kilgore notes below. But still, a Democrat has to hope that African American voters, who know that their voting rights are under an all-out assault by Republicans, will now be more inspired to turn out and make a difference where they can.
Here’s an interesting color-coded map of the “shrinking congressional battleground” showing ad spending in competitive districts by political party.
Anthony Man reports in the Florida Sun Sentinel that Democrats are optimistic about the November election, and with good reason. He quotes Florida congressman Ron Klein: “I’ve never seen the Florida Democratic Party be as strategic as they are about how you dissect Floriida.” State party chairwoman Allison Tant “promised the “biggest field program in Florida Democratic Party history.” Man adds, “she said 15 field organizers have already been hired and more are coming.”
At The New York Times Jeremy W. Peters reports on Democratic campaigns for Native American votes, a rural and sometimes pivotal constituency in several states, including Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas and Nevada.
Also at the NYT, Paul Krugman writes on the enduring folly of tax cuts as panacea, with Kansas as the latest disastrous example.
I recognize these typologies in some people I know. But I have to doubt their durability and utility. Almost by definition, most swing voters combine these traits in unpredictable ways for limited periods of time. But I agree with author David Jarman that Pew Research at least tries to probe the complexity of political attitudes.
A “left-wing tea party” brewing in the states?