Listen Live on KKFI
Every Friday at 9:00amAbout the Show
Between the Lines
"Between the Lines" is a national, half-hour program that provides a platform for individuals and spokespersons from progressive organizations generally ignored or marginalized by the mainstream media.
Battle to Replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Looms as Major Election Issue
Interview with Ari Paul, New York City-based journalist, conducted by Scott Harris
With the death of the Supreme Court’s longest serving justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13, new political battle lines were drawn over the fight to replace him. Just hours after the rigidly conservative justice’s demise, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asserted that the nomination of a replacement should wait until after the November 2016 presidential election, an opinion shared by other GOP senators and presidential candidates. But President Obama has pledged to fulfill his constitutional duty by nominating a successor “in due time.”
Scalia, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, was the court’s most influential conservative member. He promoted an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, opposing the more progressive approach of contemporary ratification, where each generation must interpret the Constitution according to changes in society. During oral arguments in a pivotal affirmative action case in December 2015, Justice Scalia suggested that African-American students might belong at less rigorous schools than their white counterparts. In overturning a key section of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Scalia said the legislation was a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” The late justice was also well-known for his conservative, anti-gay and lesbian views.
Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with New York City-based journalist Ari Paul, who has covered politics for The Nation, Vice, The Guardian, Dissent, Jacobin and many other publications. Here, he assesses Scalia’s conservative legacy and the coming battle over nominating a replacement. He begins by reviewing some of the important cases now pending before the high court that will be affected by Scalia’s death.
.
ARI PAUL: One of the biggest ones of course, is the recently argued Frederichs v. CTA (California Teachers Association) which is a case that would’ve very much affected all public sector unions in the United States. The case would’ve imposed a right-to-work regime over all public sector unions. That would mean that anyone who does not want to join the union in a certain workplace that is unionized, would not have to pay dues. Currently, those people who don’t want to join a union have to pay an “agency fee” that covered the collective bargaining rights and all the benefits that they get along with union representation. This would sort of allow people to opt out in a workplace, that would very much cripple a lot of public sector unions – especially teacher unions – because the members’ due money is how these unions operate.
So if they’re losing 20 to 30 percent of their membership dues, this very much means layoffs. It’s very difficult for them to operate. This was argued in January. It had unionists extremely nervous because they knew it would be a close vote, but at the hearings, it was very clear to everybody that all five conservative justices were buying the anti-union argument being presented there, and most unions were preparing for a new right-to-work regime coming in June.
So, with the death of Scalia, that leaves everything at about a 4-4. And this kicks the case back down to the original 9th Circuit decision which upheld the current union-dues regime. Now that kind of gives labor a reprieve for awhile. It’s not exactly a victory. This would mean that either the case would have to be reheard before the full court in the next term, so this could kick the can to possibly 2017 or the more likely situation is that the anti-union organizations that have backed these right-to-work lawsuits will simply find another test case and present it and they’ll have another chance. Now, we don’t know who’s going to replace Scalia, so that totally remakes the landscape. But it’s definitely a reprieve for labor and on a number of other issues, especially the case out of Texas with affirmative action. There was a fear that among some people that there would be a 5-4 decision striking down the ability to use any kind of race-based affirmative action in admissions in higher education. That’s also thrown to the wind. So there’s a lot of cases, but those are sort of the big ones that are cited in the news.
BETWEEN THE LINES: One of the cases I’ve been reading about is the redistricting case where conservative forces are trying to contend that only voters should be counted in congressional districts when it comes to designing and mapping out new congressional district maps. And of course, that would negate counting underage citizens, non-citizens and others who don’t have the right to vote – prisoners, as well, of course. What’t the import of that case do you think?
ARI PAUL: Well, this really is a part of the almost, sort of, half-century long battle that the political right has waged through the judicial realm to undo a lot of the progress of the 1960s and the 1970s. If you read Jeffrey Toobin’s book, called “The Nine” about the Supreme Court, actually lays it out fairly well and Scalia was very much part of this sort of multi-decade long movement to undo a lot of the legal progress, and part of that is the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. So he was very much a part of these cases that would have the court say, “Well, these things were necessary in a time of social upheaval and a time of transition, but they don’t fit for 2016. We’ve made a lot of progress since then; it’s time to undo these things.”
And of course, people on the civil rights of things would argue the opposite, that of course it’s not 50 years ago, but there are new problems and new issues and things need to have oversight. So, that’s very much something that’s going to be a key talking point as the question of who replaces Scalia goes forward, because that really is what’s at stake for the right, right now. They’ve enjoyed a 5-4 kind of block to advance these things ever since the George W. Bush administration when O’Connor, who’s considered more of a centrist, left. So this really throws their project into the gears.
BETWEEN THE LINES: Maybe you could explore one other comment, and that was a comment made by Justice Scalia in another case where he’s talking about how blacks in this country would not benefit from placement in prestigious universities, but would be better placed in slower track institutions. Another example of what I think could only be classified as blatant racism.
ARI PAUL: Yeah, I mean, you know, when he died, there was sort of a feeling amongst a lot of people of “oh was he even that old?” “Was he ill?” I haven’t seen the man’s medical records, but it’s quite possible that this was a man towards the end of his life where he sort of felt, “I can just about say anything I want at this point. Who’s going to stop me?”
I mean, they enjoy a great degree of freedom to say exactly what’s on their mind. But as you say, it does sort of really show the dark heart of that part of the conservative movement. That this was their hero. This was their activist judge who was willing to say something the average person interprets as blatantly racist.
Related Links:
mp3 Interview conducted by Scott Harris, Counterpoint, Feb. 15, 2016 (22:33)
“Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at “Slower” Colleges,” Mother Jones, Dec. 9, 2015
“Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’,” ThinkProgress, Feb. 27, 2013
“Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality,” Mother Jones, Mar. 26, 2013
“On the Death of Supreme Court Junket King Scalia,” CounterPunch, Feb. 15, 2016
“Justice Scalia’s Outsized Legacy,” Feb. 13, 2016
“Antonin Scalia is Gone – Now an Epic Political Battle Looms large,” The Guardian, Feb. 13, 2016
“5 Absurd Scalia Quotes You Just Won’t Believe,” Care2, Dec. 12, 2012
“Justice Antonin Scalia’s Death Quickly Sparks Political Battle,” CNN, Feb. 14, 2016
“What Antonin Scalia’s Death Means for the Supreme Court and the Country,” Rolling Stone, Feb. 13, 2016
” RIP Scalia,” The Nation, Feb. 16, 2016
Direct Action in Pennsylvania Blocks Destruction of Maple Trees for Proposed Gas Pipeline
Interview with Megan Holleran, organizer, conducted by Melinda Tuhus
A family in rural New Milford Township in northeast Pennsylvania is taking a stand against the plan to build a gas pipeline that would destroy their maple trees, from which they get sap for their small commercial maple syrup operation.
The 124-mile Constitution pipeline is one of many gas pipelines being proposed or constructed throughout the eastern U.S. to transport fracked gas from the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania and other states. Partners in the project include Williams, a leading energy infrastructure company, and Cabot Oil & Gas, Piedmont Natural Gas and WGL Holdings. According to the Constitution.com website, the 30-inch diameter pipeline will move enough gas to power three million homes. Owners of the pipeline say the gas is going to New England states, but many climate activists and a growing number of state-elected officials say the new pipeline is not necessary, and the nation should instead be moving to develop 100 percent renewable energy sources. Critics say there is growing evidence that the gas would be exported to Canada, or used to fire up new gas-powered electricity plants in the region.
Between The Lines’ Melinda Tuhus spoke with Megan Holleran, whose family called on local and regional supporters to stand with them, starting on Jan. 30, to keep out-of-state work crews from destroying their trees. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, granted the pipeline construction company permission last month to cut down the trees. Holleran describes the confrontation that occurred on Feb. 10 when supporters succeeded in defending the property. She says family members and supporters plan to stay on site until March 31, the deadline by which the company must complete tree-cutting before federal restrictions kick in – protecting birds and bats – until work can resume on Nov. 1. The Williams company filed a request on Feb. 15 seeking a court order authorizing state police to remove protesters from the site.
.
MEGAN HOLLERAN: They’ve been in the works for this pipeline for four or five years now, where they began approaching landowners for easement agreements. My family, which owns this property – we own a 23-acre property here in New Milford, including fields and forests and a home and our lake – they approached us to put an easement through about five acres of that. We said no. That should have been enough; unfortunately it wasn’t, and after a couple of years of legal conflict and continuing to say no, they seized the property by eminent domain and they are now planning to come through and begin clearing trees on the Pennsylvania portion of the line and on our property.
BETWEEN THE LINES: Talk a little bit about eminent domain and how it’s used and how it can be used by a private company for private gain, taking over another private entity’s property, like your family’s.
MEGAN HOLLERAN: The way that eminent domain works in this case is that, because the pipeline is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), they have the power to grant them a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which gives them public utility status, which then gives them the power to use eminent domain, the idea being that there’s a couple of conditions for eminent domain. One is that a project which is supposed to serve the public good – specifically, it is supposed to serve the good of the people being impacted by the project. They are also required to consider all available alternate routes before they choose to use a property for eminent domain. This is why it’s mostly used for things like roads that everyone drives on and that have some pretty logical restrictions for where they can and can’t put a road. In this case ,the pipeline says they have met those conditions because they claim to be transporting gas to New England and say the public good will be getting natural gas to New England, even though the landowners impacted by this are in New York and Pennsylvania will not receive any benefit from the pipeline. And they also didn’t consider all their viable routes in these cases, but because they’re considered to be a public utility, they’re allowed to seize our land to make a profit, basically.
BETWEEN THE LINES: So, you’ve had people all around, sort of checking and making sure the company – the trucks and the tree cutters – don’t come on your land. What happened Wednesday morning – I guess that was Feb. 10?
MEGAN HOLLERAN: So, Wednesday morning around 9:30, about six pickup trucks pulled in, probably about 15 to 20 personnel. It’s the crews we’ve been seeing for the past week or so as we’ve been sitting out here. They’ve been kind of skipping around different areas to cut trees. We’ve met them multiple times at this point. They pulled in Wednesday morning. I wasn’t at the property; I arrived very shortly thereafter. They had two security agents with them, whom I had met on several occasions before and who are very nice. And they also had two Williams representatives with them whom I had not met before, and who chose to wait until ten minutes into our conversation to introduce themselves and then who I was able to speak with. They informed me that they planned to clear trees here on the property – yesterday – and I told them that we planned to try to stop them, without any specifics as to how, but that we did not intend to allow them to do that. I explained my position to them on why I thought they shouldn’t be clearing trees. I think I gave them some pretty good arguments as to why they should leave.
BETWEEN THE LINES: What did you tell them?
MEGAN HOLLERAN: Well, so, our argument here is that we don’t know that this pipeline is going to get built, and we certainly don’t know that these trees need to be cut right now. They can’t cut trees in New York state right now; FERC has only given Williams a partial notice to proceed in Pennsylvania only so they can only cut trees in Pennsylvania: no construction, no clearing trees, they can only cut them, and they can’t do any work in New York state yet. New York state hasn’t given all the permitting that would even allow for construction of the pipeline; if those permits get denied the pipeline won’t get built at all. It’s one project, even though it’s interstate, so without construction in New York they can’t build it in Pennsylvania; it would be a whole different project. They have some deadlines we don’t think they’re going to be able to meet. We have some legal issues still being worked out: There’s two appeals that have been filed. There’s an injunction that’s been filed. There’s a motion to stay that’s been filed with the FERC – some very legitimate legal issues that are pending that haven’t been denied yet, so if any of those go through, they could potentially stop the tree cutting and revoke the right of Williams to begin that tree cutting. And so we were asking Williams to not cut trees here. It’s a little premature; you can’t put ‘em back on once you’ve taken them down. I know they have other places they could be working and they don’t need to be here yet, or at all. So I told them I thought they should leave and find somewhere else to work for the day.
The police did come; it was three plainclothes officers, unmarked car. They were very low-key; they were very laid-back. Nobody came in with guns blazing. They spoke with the Williams representative without us present for about ten minutes or so, and then they came and spoke with me without the Williams representative present for awhile and I explained the whole situation to them again and told them what we are doing here and our reasons for why we think they shouldn’t start cutting trees. They understood, they listened and said they did not plan to take any action yesterday, that they did not plan to enforce anything. And so they said they were going to tell that to the Williams representative and they spoke to him again and a few minutes later I talked to him and he said they were going to leave. They packed up their chain saws. I think the crew seemed okay with that; most of the crew had been present for our conversations. They packed their things up and they went somewhere else. It was a pretty successful interaction; we asked them to leave and they did.
For more information on opposition to the proposed Constitution pipeline, visit Stop the Constitution Pipleline at stopthepipeline.org and the Facebook event page at facebook.com/events/1519906745006626/.
Related Links:
“Family Turns Away Workers Wanting to Cut Trees,” WNEP, Feb. 10, 2016
“Pipeline Company Seeks Court Order to Remove Tree Protesters,” The Times-Tribune, Feb. 16, 2016
“Pennsylvania Farm Defended Against Constitution Pipeline Tree Cutters,” DCMediaGroup, Feb. 11, 2016
“Another Pipeline, Another Tree-Clearing Project,” The Pike County Courier, Feb. 10, 2016
“Trees on Chopping Block for Natural Gas Pipeline,” WNEP, Feb. 1, 2016
“Property Owners Brace for Constitution Pipeline Eminent Domain,” The Times Tribune, Feb. 16, 2015
“Standoff Imminent as PA Family Opposes Gas Pipeline Tree CuttingThrough Maple Syrup Operation,” Citizens Concerned about Natural Gas Drilling (Google Group), Jan 30, 2016
“State Police Instruct Pipeline Clearing Crews to Hold Off,” citizensvoice.com, Feb. 11, 2016
“Condem Nation: Landowners Fight Pipeline Condemnation,” No Fracking Way, Feb. 16, 2016
U.S.-Russia Weapons Build-up Signals Dangerous New Cold War
Interview with Paul Kawika Martin, political and communications director with Peace Action, conducted by Scott Harris
The Obama administration plans to spend $3.4 billion to increase the deployment of heavy weapons, armored vehicles and other equipment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe, with the goal of countering what U.S. officials say is a newly “aggressive Russia” under Vladimir Putin’s leadership. They point to Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and the country’s support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. The budget request is four times the current budget of $789 million, representing the largest military build-up in Europe since the Cold War. In response, Russian officials say NATO’s move is a threat to European stability. To underscore that point, the Russian military was put on high alert in mid-February, and held snap war games in central and southern Russia near Ukraine.
In another of echo of the Cold War era, President Obama announced plans in 2013 to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal over the next three decades at a cost of nearly $1 trillion. The plan calls for updating America’s nuclear triad, which includes intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as submarines and aircraft capable of delivering nuclear warheads. There is growing concern that moves now underway to upgrade and deploy new weapons systems by both the U.S. and Russia will trigger a new Cold War with unintended consequences.
Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Paul Kawika Martin, political and communications director with the group Peace Action. Here, he discusses the ratcheting up of tensions in Eastern Europe and explains why his group opposes President Obama’s plan to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal.
For more information, visit Peace Action at peace-action.org and Peace Action’s Organizing for Nuclear Disarmament at peace-action.org/node/125.
.
Related Links:
mp3 Interview conducted by Scott Harris, Counterpoint, Feb. 15, 2016 (26:05)
“Russia Bristles at NATO Expansion in Eastern Europe,” Voice of America, Feb. 17, 2016
“New Estimates Put Cost of US Nuclear Weapons Upgrade at $963 Billion,” Al Jazeera, Aug. 4, 2015
“Rearming for the Apocalypse,” Boston Globe, Jan. 24, 2016
“Mr. President, Kill the New Cruise Missile,” Washington Post, Oct. 15, 2015
“Nuke Plans for a New Nuclear Cruise Missile,” US News & World Report, Nov. 27, 2015
“Does Obama’s Nuclear Modernization Make the Unthinkable ‘Thinkable’?,” Common Dreams, Jan. 12, 2016
