Did one of the "liberal" justices on the Supreme Court side with union busters in case that could bust unions nationwide?

Andy Kroll, a reporter for Mother Jones, has signaled that it's likely, but not certain, that the U.S. Supreme Court may rule to either effectively enact a nationwide right-to-work-for-less law by judicial fiat or, even worse, effectively bust every single public-sector union in the entire country by judicial fiat in the Harris v. Quinn case that will likely be decided Monday.

However, it may not be the usual five conservative justices who may make up an anti-union majority on the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, usually one of the most conservative justices on the court, sided with the unions during the oral arguments of the Harris case (however, that doesn't guarantee that Scalia will side with the unions when the ruling is issued, although it's certainly a possibility). Additionally, in 1991, Scalia himself wrote that "where the state creates in the nonmembers a legal entitlement from the union, it may compel them to pay the cost" in the Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn. case.

If the Supreme Court, which has five conservative justices and four liberal justices, has only four conservative justices siding against the unions, that would mean that the union busters would need at least one of the liberal justices to side against the unions in order for the court to rule against the unions. You're probably asking yourself this question: Which one of the four "liberals" on our nation's highest court would be the one to side with the conservatives and bust the unions in this country? My guess that it would be either Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, or Stephen Breyer, since Ruth Bader Ginsburg is widely considered to be the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court bench, and it would be highly unlikely that she'd rule against the unions in a landmark case that would have massive ramifications on American society.

Should one or more of the four "liberal" justices of the Supreme Court rule against the unions in the Harris case, that would be perhaps the single most traitorous act in modern American history. It's atrocious enough when conservatives want to take away rights from working Americans, but, in my opinion, it's even worse when liberals do so, since liberals are expected to stand up for workers' rights, not take them away. A ruling against the unions would give wealthy people and corporations even more influence and control over our country's politics, worsen income inequality, and cost this country thousands, if not millions, of jobs.

Why I'm writing a book criticizing corporate welfare

Republicans and corporate Democrats have long supported corporate welfare, in which taxpayer money goes toward tax credits, tax cuts, handouts, and other forms of payouts to specific businesses or specific types of businesses, and those payouts have little or no benefit to the general public.

The corporate welfare system in this country is an inefficient, unsustainable system of government encouraging growth in the private-sector economy, and that's why I'm writing a book, which will be titled Corporate Welfare Queens, criticizing the corporate welfare system in this country and promoting my ideas for responsible economic development.

My book is currently slated for release sometime in the early part of next year, and it will likely be available in an online-only format, as I don't know of a single traditional book publisher that would be interested in anything I write.

Dick Cheney is responsible for the current situation in Iraq

In case you missed it, Former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney criticized President Barack Obama over the current crisis in Iraq.

What Cheney won't tell you is that he, along with George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, is responsible for the Islamic fundamentalist terror group ISIS capturing much of Iraq.

ISIS, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, became a significant force in Iraq following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, of which Cheney was the mastermind of. If it weren't for Cheney and his cronies leading us into an unjustified war in Iraq, ISIS wouldn't have been in a position to take over much of Iraq and Syria. It was wrong for this country to invade Iraq in 2003, and the current situation there proves that.

Dick Cheney has absolutely no standing whatsoever to criticize President Obama over the current situation in Iraq. After all, he's responsible for helping the terror group ISIS capture much of Iraq.

Establishment Democrats are no longer interested in fighting for anything

Hillary Clinton, one of several possible candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, has sounded guarded in recent media appearances. For example, she isn't willing to take a firm stand on a number of issues, such as the Keystone XL pipeline and legalization of recreational marijuana.

This is a considerably different Hillary Clinton today than the one we all saw in the 1990's. Back then, Hillary publicly spoke out in favor of universal health care and railed against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" against establishment Democrats, such as herself, and progressives.

Since Hillary Clinton is considered by many to be the standard-bearer of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party, that leads me to ask this question: Has the Democratic establishment stopped fighting for anything?

One of my biggest grievances about the current leadership of the Democratic Party is that the current leadership of the party is more concerned about getting themselves and their cronies elected than fighting for anything that would make America a better place to live. Granted, on a few issues, such as marriage equality and, more recently, student loan reform, most establishment Democrats are fighting alongside progressives. However, on many other issues, most establishment Democrats are either siding with the far-right Republicans or distancing themselves from the issue altogether.

The Democratic establishment has completely given up on the idea of political courage these days. Instead of fighting for ideas that will make America a better place to live, the Democratic establishment is more concerned about sucking up to special interests and rewarding their cronies. It's time for progressives to divide and conquer the Democratic Party and lead the party into a new, more progressive generation of leadership and courage. It's time for progressives to start fighting for pro-middle class, pro-worker, pro-woman, pro-civil rights, pro-civil liberties, and pro-democracy values, and start realizing that both the Republicans and the Democratic establishment are adversaries in this fight for America's heart and soul.

Interesting Election Reform Idea: Semi-Partisan Primaries

Over 100 years ago, Robert M. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette invented the primary system, which, for the first time, allowed rank-and-file members of each political party to choose who would run on the party's ticket in the general election.

However, the partisan primary system that is used nowadays in most states doesn't really allow people who don't strongly identify with a political party that has primary access (in most states, these are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party) to participate in the primary process, and the "top-two" primary system that is seen in states like California and Washington can result in a single political party getting both of the slots in the general election.

My proposal for semi-partisan primaries works like this:

• The government of each state that adopts the semi-partisan primary system would be responsible for maintaining registrations of all political parties in the state.
• Voters who are registered with a political party will get a ballot listing all of the candidates for public offices to be elected (i.e., state governor, U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, state legislator, etc.), regardless of party affiliation, as well as the candidates running for party offices (i.e., state party chairperson, county party chairperson, precinct committeeperson, etc.) in the party that they are registered with.
• Voters who are not registered with a political party will get a ballot listing all of the candidates for public offices to be elected, regardless of party affiliation, but elections for party offices are not included on the ballot for those not registered with a political party.
• For presidential elections, voters who are registered with a political party that is eligible for presidential primary ballot access (i.e., the state party in question would have to be affiliated with a national party that nominates a presidential candidate, and the national party in question would have to hold its national convention sometime within a 3-5 month window specified by law) would get a ballot containing only the presidential candidates who are running for the nomination of the party that the voter is registered with. Voters who are not registered with a political party or registered with a political party that does not nominate a presidential candidate would get a ballot containing all of the presidential candidates who are running in a party that has presidential primary ballot access. Voters who are registered with a political party that is ineligible for presidential primary ballot access due to the party holding its convention outside of the legally-specified window for presidential primary ballot access are not allowed to vote in presidential primaries, and the party or parties in question would be required to use a caucus/convention system if it wishes to nominate a presidential candidate. Results for each party's presidential primary is tabulated separately, and pledged delegates are assigned to candidates based on the percentage of votes they receive among those running in their party.
• For other elections for public office in which only one office is to be filled, any independent candidate who receive at least 1% of the vote advances to the general election, and any political party whose candidates receive at least 1% of the vote combined sends the candidate with who receives the highest number of votes among those who are running within that party to the general election.
• For elections for public office in which more than one office is to be filled, the threshold for qualifying an independent candidate for the general election is 1%/n, in which n is the number of offices to be filled, and the threshold for qualifying a political party is 1%/n, in which n is the number of offices to be filled. Political parties who qualify for the general election are able to send a number of candidates to the general election equal to the number of offices to be filled.
• For elections for party office, the candidate(s) with the most votes are elected unless a preferential voting system of some kind (instant-runoff voting, single transferable vote, etc.) is used.
• For general elections for president, a "majority-take-all" system is used within each state to allocate electoral votes: should one presidential candidate get more than 50% of the vote in a particular state, the presidential candidate in question wins all of the electoral votes from that state. Should no presidential candidate get more than 50% of the vote in a particular state, the state's electoral votes are allocated to each of the candidates in proportion to the statewide popular vote in that state.
• For general elections for other public office in which only a single office is to be filled, instant-runoff voting is used should more than two candidates qualify for the general election, and first-past-the-post voting is used should one or two candidates qualify for the general election. Officially non-partisan elections for public office in which only a single office is to be filled use are done in this manner, but without the primary.
• For general election for other public office in which multiple offices are to be filled, single transferable voting is used should the number of candidates running be more than twice the number of offices to be filled, and single non-transferable voting is used should the number of candidates running be twice the number of offices to be filled or less. Officially non-partisan elections for public office in which multiple offices are to be filled are done in this manner, but without the primary.

The semi-partisan primary system is designed with the hopes of boosting primary turnout, allowing for greater participation in the political process in this country by those who don't strongly identify with a political party, allow minor political parties to participate in the primary process, and prohibit the strange occurrences that sometimes happen under a "top-two" primary system.

The Mainstream Media's War on Women

The Republican Party, anti-abortion groups, and other organizations and people who are opposed to women's rights are waging a war on women in this country, but, sadly, they're not the only ones waging a war on women. The mainstream news media in this country is also waging a war on women in this country.

One example of the mainstream media's war on women was CNN's Candy Crowley sympathizing with the two rapists in the Steubenville, Ohio rape case after they were found guilty:

Shortly after the guilty verdict in the Steubenville rape case was announced, Candy Crowley took to the airwaves to report it and connect with their reporter on the ground for more details. Her lead-in to the remote shot was shameful. 

Crowley was filled with sadness for two young men who took advantage of a drunk and possibly drugged young girl because the judge actually held them accountable for what they did. Instead of wondering aloud why they weren't tried as adults, she was instead very concerned that now they would have to register for the rest of their lives as sex offenders.

Never once did CNN or Crowley show any sympathy for the female victim of the rape, and me and many other people found that to be distasteful and offensive.

More recently, George Will, a conservative columnist for The Washington Post, wrote this post criticizing the federal government for cracking down on college and university administrators who aid and abet the far too pervasive rape culture in this country, falsely claimed that sexual assault never occurs on college campuses, and claiming that being a victim of sexual assault is a "coveted status".

Will's pro-rape culture column is the single worst piece that I have ever seen from the mainstream news media in this country. Dr. Jennifer Gunter, an obstetrician/gynecologist who was sexually assaulted while a college student two and a half decades ago, wrote this response to Will's column, where she criticized Will for defending rape culture and shared her own experience of being raped:

I was specifically moved to write to you because the rape scenario that you describe somewhat incredulously is not unfamiliar to me. Not because I've heard it in many different iterations (I have sadly done many rape kits), but because it was not unlike my own rape. The lead up was slightly different, but I too was raped by someone I knew and did not emerge with any obvious physical evidence that a crime had been committed. I tried to push him away, I said “No!” and “Get off” multiple times,” but he was much stronger and suddenly I found my hands pinned behind my back and a forearm crushing my neck and for a few minutes I found it hard to breathe. I was 22, far from home, scared, and shocked and so at some point I just stopped kicking and let him finish. Sound familiar? For several weeks I didn't even think about it as a rape because that was easier than admitting the truth. Again, sound familiar? 

When a man who is much stronger than you holds you down (Hey baby don’t fight, you know you want it) and forces your legs open the violence and power of those movements is horrifically violating and utterly disempowering. You think you screamed NO! at the top of your lungs but you were so scared and so shocked that when you went from yelling no! to pleading no to silently weeping no is hard to remember. Implied violence Mr. Will is a terrifying thing indeed.

One of the main reasons why sexual assault is tolerated by a large segment of this country's population is because the mainstream news media in this country aids and abets those who defend rape culture in this country.

The ACLU joins the Republican Party's War on Democracy

The American Civil Liberties Union has officially sided with Republicans and right-wing judicial activists who are waging a war on democracy in this country. 

The ACLU is opposing a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would repeal the Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court decision and other court decisions that have opened the floodgates to unlimited amounts of money in electoral politics in this country. What is even worse is that the ACLU is using the same argument against amending the U.S. Constitution to get the undue influence of money out of politics that Republicans and conservatives have used to open the floodgates to big-money politics in the first place:

In a letter submitted Tuesday to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed opposition to the amendment, saying it would “lead directly to government censorship of political speech and result in a host of unintended consequences that would undermine the goals the amendment has been introduced to advance.”

The ACLU argued the amendment, intended to reign in the spending allowed by those rulings, would “fundamentally break the constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.”

The proposed constitutional amendment to get the undue influence of money out of politics would do absolutely nothing to restrict the free speech rights of Americans. What it would do is make it more difficult for wealthy people to buy elections and bring government closer to the people.

The ACLU is defending millionaires and billionaires who hate democracy, are waging a war on democracy in this country, and want to buy elections for themselves and their cronies. I strongly encourage members of the U.S. Senate to vote for the proposed amendment to eliminate the undue influence of money in politics in this country.

Could Brian Schweitzer run for President or Vice President as a Republican?

Former Democratic Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer recently attended Mitt Romney's Republican retreat in Park City, Utah, which is unexpected for someone who is considering running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Here's my speculation as to why Schweitzer attended the Romney retreat: He may be considering running for president or vice president...as a Republican.

For those of you who are not familiar with Schweitzer, he's no fan of the Democratic establishment, having been a vocal critic of Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. While I'm certainly not a fan of the Democratic establishment myself, I'm considerably more progressive than Schweitzer is. Sure, he's taken stances to the left of mainstream Democrats on some issues, such as health care and campaign finance reform. However, he's also taken stances to the right of mainstream Democrats on issues like guns and the environment. Schweitzer was personally endorsed by NRA head Wayne LaPierre in his 2008 re-election bid for Governor of Montana, and Schweitzer has criticized President Obama and other Democrats for supporting clean air and clean water laws.

It's not completely out of the question that Brian Schweitzer may run for president or vice president as a Republican. If he did that, he would lose all of the respect I have for him, to put it mildly.

The Growing Divide Within the Democratic Party between the Establishment and Progressives

U.S. News columnist Dave Cantanese wrote this piece on a growing divide within the Democratic Party between the party's establishment and the progressive base of the party. In his piece, Cantanese quoted Roger Hickey, one of the co-founders of the progressive organization Campaign for America's Future, who gave a very good description of a growing divide within the Democratic Party between the party's establishment and the progressives who compromise the party's base:

Roger Hickey, co-founder for the liberal group Campaign for America’s Future, contends that while the base is lurching leftward, party leadership is less comfortable with the path. 

“The structure of the Democratic Party [is] trying to figure this out​,” he says. “There are the timid Democrats who don’t want to threaten their possibility of getting money from Wall Street. There’s a lot of them, including Hillary Clinton.”

If you're wondering why the Democratic Party isn't as progressive as it should be, there are two key reasons why:

1. Establishment Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Steve Israel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Ron Kind, Rahm Emanuel, etc. are more concerned about getting payoffs from Wall Street and other special interests than fighting for progressive ideas.
2. Most Democratic voters hold progressive views on most issues, but many Democrats don't want to be seen as progressive and are unwilling to fight the party's establishment for control of the party.

Unlike many Democrats, I'm proud to call myself a progressive. I believe in restoring the American middle class, protecting the rights of workers, women, minorities, and voters, guaranteeing equal rights for all Americans, giving more Americans access to affordable health care, making government less corrupt and more transparent, guaranteeing workers a living wage, regulating private-sector businesses to protect consumers, the environment, and the public, modernizing our nation's infrastructure, repealing free trade agreements that have shipped American jobs overseas, and staying out of the foreign affairs of other countries except when necessary to protect U.S. interests, among other things. More importantly, I fight for what I believe will make America a better place for all of us to live.

Welcome to The Progressive Idealist!

I'm Aaron Camp, the author of this brand new progressive political blog, The Progressive Idealist. I'm a 24-year-old resident of the small town of Westville, Illinois.

Normally, I write about Illinois and Wisconsin politics at Blue Downstate and The Prairie Badger, respectively, but this will be my home for blogging about national politics, international politics, state-level politics outside of Illinois and Wisconsin, and election analysis.

Keep checking back for more!