Talk:Lewis F. Powell Jr.

This is the guy who made bribery legal in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBee2020 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Why no mention of Powell’s secret conservative activist memo delivered to the US Chamber of Commerce shortly before his appointment to the US Supreme Court? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ServedNavyDeepSeaDiver (talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Lewis Franklin Powell Jr. was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article ((ooops, if that is a dead link, then try this)) at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Powell memo

I think the section on the Powell memo is in serious need of improvement and NPOV cleanup. After a cursory search, I can't find a verifiable source that the memo even exists, let alone is responsible for everything attributed to it. --Gotophilk (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I tagged the article. It needs sources other than interest groups, and the ref tags are all messed up. Janus303 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Powell memo is definitely authentic. It's in the Powell Archives at Washington and Lee University School of Law. I've added a link.

The section has WP:NPOV and WP:RS problems, but that could be fixed by doing a Google search for the memo and selecting out the WP:RSs, of which there are many. That includes American Prospect, PBS and the New York Times. His attacks on Ralph Nader definitely illustrate the climate of the times and Powell's personal opinions, and make it worth including. --Nbauman (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The entire page is BS - Powell was a far-right activist, not any sort of moderate. Moreover, his memo was a call to action to the US Chambers of Commerce and other rightist groups to start the modern wingnut welfare system and create a right-wing media, academia and court system. The idea that the socialists had taken over the country and Lewis Powell's fascistic memo was somehow exposing them is absolute bunk. And of course all that market fundie-dominated Wikipedia will discuss is whether the Powell memo is real - which is a very nice Tea Party approach. Yeah, focus on the Kendonesian birth certificate, not any of the issues. I am glad that issue was dealt with promptly. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.229.222 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't help but feel that the last paragraph of the "Memorandum" section is slanted towards minimizing the effects of Powell's personal opinions on his later Supreme Court decisions - for a Supreme Court justice to propose that there should exist "constant surveillence" of textbooks & media is troubling. To say that this memo "did little but convey the thinking among businessmen at the time" really minimizes the impact of Powell's statements, esp. given the recent Supreme Court Citizens United decision. In any case, the paragraph contains opinion, & should be changed to reflect a more balanced view of Powell's opinions & the effect they had on decisions on the court.

B-class review

Failed for WP:BIO, due to insufficient inline citations - numerous unreferenced paragraphs present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed? It says his "Political party" was: "Democratic Party"

The Infobox says that his Political party was: "Democratic Party".

That might be true, but shouldn't there be some kind of numbered "footnote" hyperlinking to a reliable, published source that 'said' so?

Isn't this a good example of an opportunity to affix one of those little "citation needed" tags?

I am wondering, whether it is really TRUE that his Political party was the "Democratic Party". Maybe so... but, note that the Infobox does also say, that he was Nominated by Richard M. Nixon -- a Republican.

So, in any event, if Powell's "Political party" really was the "Democratic Party", then there should exist some good newspaper stories, or books or magazines, (online or otherwise) that say so... or that "quote" someone as having said so [or written so]. . . . (right?)

Just my 0.02 ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC) If Powell's thinking was dominated by capitalist, neo-liberal motivations, is it not naive to give as a fact that his support of abortion (in Roe versus Wade) was motivated by a feeling of compassion generated by a botched abortion, and not by those same capitalist, neo-liberal, materialist and uncompassionate motivations? Behind the abortion movement were the oligarchs and their ideological fellow travellers. Let us not simply accept what Powell may have said about the matter as the truthCklc (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

why no mention

of how many people died to to his efforts to defend tobacco against surgeon general rulings?Juror1 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis F. Powell Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050920010425/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2001/0107.mencimer.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2001/0107.mencimer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis F. Powell Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420214023/http://www.firstpost.com/topic/person/gore-vidal-noam-chomsky-on-powell-memorandum-student-debt-and-occup-video-FSYXLu0ZbO8-2381-2.html to http://www.firstpost.com/topic/person/gore-vidal-noam-chomsky-on-powell-memorandum-student-debt-and-occup-video-FSYXLu0ZbO8-2381-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Powell Memorandum in Intro

I've removed the sections pertaining to the Powell memorandum in the lede. In addition to being largely repetitive, they constituted a third of the introduction over two paragraphs. This seems wholly disproportionate, and I have accordingly taken them out. (Furthermore, I am not sure whether a Greenpeace blog post qualifies as a reliable source, but that's another story).

Atchom (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, the Powell memo deserves its own article. It’s the subject of numerous academic papers, books, and articles. Second, it belongs in the lead. Greenpeace has nothing to do with this, other than they were the first organized group to bring this topic to the public when everyone was asleep at the wheel. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find the old revision and restore something to the lede. As I haven't seen the old lede, I can't say that the memorandum wasn't overrepresented in it, but I agree that it should at least be mentioned. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:756C (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Date of memorandum

Article currently says

On August 23, 1971, prior to accepting Nixon's nomination to the Supreme Court, Powell was commissioned by his neighbor Eugene B. Sydnor Jr., a close friend and education director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to write a confidential memorandum for the chamber...

But, the WLU web page about the memorandum[1] says:

On August 23, 1971, less than two months before he was nominated to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. mailed a confidential memorandum to his friend Eugene B. Sydnor...

If Powell mailed the memorandum on August 23, 1971, it must have been begun at an earlier date. So our article misstates the history. Some kind of fix is needed, either an editorial one changing the description, or (preferably) addition of new info fleshing out the timeline. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:756C (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Cato, the Business Roundtable, Manhattan Institute and Heritage are not all "Right-Wing Organizations"

That is clearly a politicized description of what are mainstream conservative, libertarian, and pro-business groups. Is the AFL-CIO a "left wing" institution? What about the ACLU and most American higher education?

Please remove the political moniker and use a more neutral term, such as conservative, libertarian, or pro-business groups. 24.127.33.121 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Your alternative is not much better. "Pro-business" assumes the other side is not. It also assumes that taking care of employees, paying them living wages, providing health care, maternity leave, sick leave, etc. is somehow "anti-business". That’s an extreme POV that only has currency in the US, and is seen as corrupt and inhuman by most people. Further, we know for a fact that the groups you describe are indeed right wing and are funded by right wing interest groups. This idea that using the "pro-business" moniker as a shield or distraction from their true goals is the issue. And the idea that higher education is left wing is a conspiracy theory invented by the John Birch Society. What is true, is that when people are educated, they tend to embrace the values of liberalism. Note, this does not make someone a communist, a socialist, or a Marxist. What are liberal values? Read the article.

• believing in equality and individual liberty
• supporting private property and individual rights
• supporting the idea of limited constitutional government
• recognising the importance of related values such as pluralism, toleration, autonomy, bodily integrity, and consent

This is precisely why conservatives are anti-education, and explains why they are to the right of liberal values. Modern conservatives in the US are against equality, individual liberty, individual rights, plurality, toleration, autonomy, bodily integrity, and consent. There is some debate as to whether conservatives even support private property, as many of their positions seem to encourage the taking of property from other people. Conservatism is a regressive philosophy. It is anti-democratic and seeks to reinstate aristocracy (in whatever form, oligarchic, religious, or simply plutocracy). Conservatism has reached its logical endpoint, which is fascism. This isn’t rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Trying to parse this

His experiences as a corporate lawyer and a director on the board of Phillip Morris from 1964 until his appointment to the Supreme Court made him a champion of the tobacco industry who railed against the growing scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer deaths. He argued, unsuccessfully, that tobacco companies' First Amendment rights were being infringed when news organizations were not giving credence to the cancer denials of the industry.

It's hard for me in 2023 to understand where Powell was coming from. Why should news orgs have given credence to industry denials of medical science? Where's the sense in this? What am I missing? Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Issues with quote veracity

The explicit goal of the memo was not to destroy democracy, though its emphasis on political institution-building as a concentration of big business power, particularly updating the Chamber's efforts to influence federal policy, has had that effect.

I'm wondering if this accurate. Many businessmen and business interests came forward after this and were quoted saying 1) they didn't want more people to vote, they wanted less, since conservatives could only win elections and create policies favoring billionaires and corporations when the vote was suppressed as conservative policies were inherently unpopular with the public, and 2) they wanted to specifically destroy democratic institutions and replace them with a kind of managed democracy, like the kind we now see in Russia and other authoritarian regimes, where there is the appearance of democracy, but it stops at appearances, while the oligarchs, in coordination with the state and very often even religious institutions, control everything behind the scenes. This idea that the memo did not intend to do this seems misguided. In other words, the only reason America turned to the right was because of the anti-democratic push by the right. This is pretty well supported in the literature. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)