1hundredsixty8

The Powell Doctrine articulated a clear plan to deal with threats to our country. It was the epitome of thoughtful military planning: Identify clear, attainable objectives, analyze the risks and costs, explore alternatives, consider consequences, and calculate what it would take to garner support. Rooted in the national experiences of the 1960’s and 1970’s, it has retained a singular relevance into this century.

I am referring here not to General Colin Powell’s posing of the questions he felt needed to be answered before the United States committed itself to military action. Instead, I am describing the memorandum sent to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in April, 1971 by Lewis Powell, a corporate lawyer who sat on a number of corporate boards, shortly before President Richard Nixon appointed him to the Supreme Court. In what subsequently became known as the Powell Memo and not made public until after Powell became a Justice, he warns of “a broad attack on the American economic system.”

The dangers Powell saw were not only the “sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre”; but “the chorus of criticism com(ing) from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.” He felt that business had been apathetic in the face of “this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity.” As a response, Powell urged the Chamber to initiate a variety of actions aimed at increasing the influence of business in higher and secondary education, the media, and politics. It was no doubt his advice to the Chamber to add an intellectual component that led to the creation of business-centric think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute.

Uncannily anticipating his own appointment to the bench soon thereafter, Powell made special mention of the role of the courts. He felt that even more than the legislative and executive branches, the judiciary “may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change”. To drive home his point, Powell noted the effectiveness of the Left in “exploiting judicial action.” I would argue it was Powell’s manifesto that was the starting point for the Republican Party’s practice of appointing ideological conservatives to the Federal courts.

And that brings us to last week, when the Senate once again blocked via filibuster the appointment of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The GOP’s rationale for keeping Ms. Halligan off the Federal bench is their assertion that she is an “activist judge” and they are thus justified in disregarding the informal agreement between Republican and Democratic Senators that judicial nominees should receive an up-or-down vote. Republicans cite as the “extraordinary circumstances” in Ms. Halligan’s case a brief she wrote while Solicitor General of New York State supporting the view that “gun manufacturers be held legally liable for criminal acts committed with handguns.” Her appointment is vehemently opposed by the N.R.A.

As with most things that happen in our Congress, there is more here than meets the eye. The D.C. Circuit is the second most important Federal court in the nation. It has the authority to review statutes and rules of many Federal agencies and departments. It has been the springboard for appointments to the Supreme Court- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg all sat on the D.C. Circuit bench. It was the D.C. Circuit that recently vacated President Obama’s recess appointments to National Labor Relations Board. It is generally conceded that the current Court leans towards conservative opinions.

There are presently four vacancies on the Court. Of the seven active judges, four were appointed by George W. Bush, three by Bill Clinton. In this light, filling the vacancies would no doubt move the Court to the Left. Given the principles of the Powell Doctrine, Republican opposition to Caitlin Halligan makes perfect sense.