It’s been a long time since the word “liberal” was stolen from the vernacular and turned into a curse.  In the interim, we’ve managed to squander a budget surplus, get into a losing, and never-ending, war, watch our economy tank, then tank some more, and then really tank. 

Our prisons are filled with more than 2.3 million people, who can’t leave because they can’t afford the gasoline to drive them home, but it doesn’t matter too much because their home was foreclosed.  All in all, it has not been the halcyon days that Newt Gingrich expected.

This may be about to change.  Not only have we seen some interesting changes in American politics, but the re-emergence of the word “liberal” could signal a shift in political thought that would open avenues of thought that had been rejected by most Americans.  We’re a curious bunch, we are.  We learn from our mistakes.  Eventually.

Tony Mauro at Legal Times, repeated at the New York Lawyer, announces the formation of the liberal law firm, dedicated to a liberal textual reading of the Constitution, together with the American Constitution Society, the flip side of the Federalist Society.

The United States Constitution: It’s not just for conservatives anymore.

With that thesis in mind, a new liberal think tank and public interest law firm launched in D.C. on Tuesday, hoping to catch a progressive wave in both election politics and scholarly research on the meaning of the nation’s founding document.

To spread the word and take it into court, Kendall has assembled liberal stalwarts — and liberal money — to back his effort and support his view that, unlike unsuccessful liberal efforts in the past, his approach of embracing the Constitution’s text has the best shot of recapturing the constitutional high ground from conservatives. Yale Law School’s Akhil Amar and Jack Balkin and Duke’s Walter Dellinger are advisers, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute is a major funder. Ron Klain, former chief of staff to Al Gore and now an investment adviser for progressives, is also on board. Startup money totals nearly $2 million.

It’s about time.  Kendall is absolutely right that a liberal’s had given away the Constitution from a text-based analysis, only to find that my very dear, personal friend, Nino Scalia (dinner this Sunday at 6 again, pal?) has resurrected their hopes.

Ever since the start of the Reagan legal revolution in 1980, Kendall says, conservative judges and thinkers have laid claim to the Constitution’s language, basing their legal arguments — genuinely or not — in “originalism” or “textualism,” while painting liberal positions as rootless judicial activism. Liberals responded, Kendall says, by distancing themselves from the words of the Constitution, fearing that it produced bad results.

Kendall wants to debunk that view and supply the research and support that will enable liberals to seek progressive results by using arguments based on constitutional text and history. (Kendall avoids the word “originalism,” a term with no fixed meaning, in his view.)

Having watched as the arguments devolved into simplistic absolutes, it has become increasingly clear that Scalia, based upon his unvarnished textual reading of the Constitution, has done more the salvage basic rights than anyone since Earl Warren.  Yes, he’s been less than perfect, but who else gave us Crawford?  Think about it.  No emanations or penumbras, just a clear vision of the right to cross-examine witnesses. 

Contrary to the assumptions that the general bias against all things liberal, not to mention the conversion of a philosophy to an epithet that Democratic candidates for office avoid like the plague, it’s only dead if progressive thinkers allow it to be.  No side owns the Constitution unless you let them.

Kendall’s efforts signal a resurgence in the belief that there is no shame in liberal beliefs.  Hey, why give up the high ground to the great mass of thinkers who find a third grade civics exam an impossible challenge?  I applaud this effort and hope that Kendall will give me a call if he could use a hand.