"Politically Correct Ways to Lobby Judges"

Politically Correct Ways to Lobby Judges

According to a September, 1998 article in the New York Times, about 1.2 billion dollars was spent lobbying the federal government in 1997. The number was expected to be higher in 1998. The $1.2 billion only counts money spent lobbying congressional and executive branch officials. The New York Times would not like to admit that lobbyists also target judges [1].

A "lobbyist" is a person who represents a special interest group; his job is to influence public officials to take an action that the special interest group wants taken. Often the desired action is contrary to the interests of the public at large. The special interest group is trying to obtain some benefit at our expense.

It's obvious that the targets of lobbyists include presidents and congressmen; it's probably not so obvious that lobbyists also target judges. Judges don't have any public goodies to hand out. They just decide "cases" and "controversies" according to preexisting law and the Constitution.

In a pig's eye!

Federal judges have been handing out public goodies since the dawn of the Republic. The first recorded case was in 1793. In 1810 the Supreme Court abetted a swindle involving 35 million acres of public land. Supreme Court justices are positioned to issue authoritative interpretations of the Constitution; and they have little reluctance to misuse this privilege and effectively amend the Constitution to suit their own biases. Special interest groups, therefore, do not neglect lobbying judges [2].

You're probably aware that lobbyists usually offer their target some kind of payoff. When the target is an elected official, it's most often a "contribution" to assist his (her) reelection campaign. A campaign contribution is not (legally) considered a bribe unless someone proves a "quid pro quo."

The words "quid pro quo" are Latin. A rough translation is "something for something else." Proving a "quid pro quo" is almost impossible, both parties in the deal would have to be incredibly stupid. For example they would have to do something like sign a contract describing what the politician agrees to do in exchange for the contribution. You will not be surprised to learn that it's hardly ever done that way.

But I digress. Lobbying federal judges requires a lot more subtlety than lobbying Members of Congress. Federal judges don't need campaign funds. And about the only offence that can get them impeached and removed from office is to get caught taking a cash bribe. Therefore, you almost never hear of a federal judge at any level taking a monetary payoff [3].

So how does one lobby a justice of the U. S. Supreme Court? What does one offer him (her) to influence his (her) judgement or conduct? There's a lot more to life than money. One offers something that motivates him (or her), yet it's invisible to the people. Folks in the business of lobbying judges understand Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Industry has long used the theories of Abraham Maslow, a famous psychologist, to guide human resource policies and make employees more productive. Maslow's ideas are not the last word in the field, but experts still view them as valid and useful [4].

Maslow pointed out that one can group all human needs into five types. He identified, as the five types, basic ‘physiological' (or survival) needs, security needs, belonging needs, ego needs, and "self-actualization" needs. Except, perhaps, for self-actualization needs, the meaning of each type is obvious from its name. "Self-actualization" is the fulfillment of one's potential. As Maslow put it, "What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization."

So far, this is just a classification scheme. However, Maslow also offered some new insights. He pointed out that the five types of needs have a natural ranking in order of urgency; we must satisfy our most urgent needs before we even think about the others. The most urgent needs are the survival needs (food, water, shelter, etc.). Security needs are next; we hope to survive tomorrow, not just today. Then come belonging needs, then ego needs, then self-actualization needs.

Maslow's theories are sometimes taught through use of a triangle. The most urgent needs, the survival needs, are in the bottom section of the triangle. The higher needs rest, so to speak, on the lower needs. As we go up the triangle, the needs not only become less urgent; they also become higher status. Being concerned about survival needs is for residents of the third world. Concern for security needs is, at best, middle class.

Self-actualization is where it's really at. Poets, artists, and research scientists are sometimes motivated by self-actualization needs as were folks like Mother Theresa. It's important to remember that a need is satisfied if we think that it is. An artist could be producing garbage but if he thinks it's great art he is indeed self-actualized.

The physiological needs of federal judges are usually well satisfied as are their security needs. So, unless they have some sort of mental disorder, your offer to slip them a few thousand bucks will not motivate them. They would just give you a dirty look and, possibly, report you to the Justice Department. You need to think of something else. You have to move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

You could offer to fill their belonging needs by wrapping them in the warm embrace of Washington society or the American Bar Association. Or you could gratify their ego needs by publishing flattering articles in The New York Times or the Washington Post. You could bring them a case which offers them a chance to enlarge the scope of their power by usurping some more of Congress's prerogatives or those of the states. Power is an ego need too. You're giving them a chance to feel like the kings and emperors whose images adorn the Supreme Courtroom wall [5].

A really good way to motivate Supreme Court justices is to offer to fill their self-actualization needs. If you offer them a chance to announce some sweeping new principal of "fundamental law," you're offering them a religious experience; there are also a few prophets depicted on the Supreme Courtroom wall. When announcing that she's "discovered" a new aspect of "fundamental law" a justice can feel that she alone has a pipeline to God.

Now, it's bad form to buttonhole a Supreme Court justice at a Washington cocktail party and offer your "quid quo pro." You must address her (him) through a member of a select group of lawyers authorized to practice before the Court. Your lawyer can offer the payoff in a legal brief; "We the People" hardly ever read legal briefs. You can play this game without even being a party to the lawsuit in question; just hire one of the select lawyers mentioned earlier who will conceal your offer in a "friend of the Court brief." In either case, your lawyer's brief should suggest a cover story the Court might use to rationalize the desired usurpation.

Alternatively, you could persuade a sympathetic journalist to publish a pointed article offering your "quid pro quo" in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Of course subtlety is an absolute necessity when you lobby the justices via this approach. Lots of folks read the New York Times or the Washington Post.

NOTES & CITATIONS

1. See "The Business of Persuasion Thrives in Nation's Capital," by Jill Abramson, New York Times, September 29, 1998. The number of admitted federal lobbyists, in 1997, was 14,484. I found that information in The Oregonian, July 8, 1998, page A8. The article was written by Jonathan D. Salant of the AP.

2. To review a long list of fraudulent constitutional amendments by the Court, see Trapped in the Temple of Karnak: An Unexpurgated History of the Supreme Court. The 1793 case mentioned above was Chisholm v. Georgia; the 1810 case was Fletcher v. Peck. See the online essay Judicial Activism, the Eleventh Amendment, and the Yazoo Land Fraud.

3. I didn't say "never," I said "almost never."

4. As far as I know Maslow's comprehensive theory on a hierarchy of human needs first appears in his 1943 paper, "Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological Review, 1943, Vol. 50, pp 370-396.

5. See The Temple of Karnak, Chapter 8.