Contributors

Monday, July 09, 2012

The Charlie Brown of the Supreme Court

In a piece on Slate Dahlia Lithwick wonders why conservatives are so bent out of shape because Chief Justice John Roberts voted for the ACA act, but when "liberal" justices like Elena Kagan vote with the conservatives, liberals don't bring out the pitchforks, tar and feathers.

The problem is that the justices face exactly the same situation that Charlie Brown does when Lucy tees up the football for him to kick.

When Roberts assumed office in 2005, the mandate was a basic tenet of conservative thought. Mitt Romney and the Heritage foundation said it the only responsible funding mechanism for universal health care, to avoid the infamous free riders.

After teeing up the health care mandate football in conservative health care position papers for decades, and after Romney implemented said mandate in Massachusetts, conservatives yanked the ball away just as Roberts about to kick it, the way Lucy always does to Charlie Brown.

In the last 20 years the Republican Party has been hijacked by a cabal of extremely wealthy individuals with a very specific agenda. The answers nominees to the court gave that Republicans loudly applauded in confirmation hearings seven to ten years ago would be roundly booed and proclaimed treasonous by conservatives today.

This is the real difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoints on the court.

Conservatives appear to believe the court is nothing but an extension of the political process, and appointees should be required to carry out the wishes of the political party that appointed and confirmed them, even years after that party has changed its platform about an issue. For conservatives the court is nothing but another mechanism to enforce their hyperpartisan view of the way the country should be run.


Conservatives used to believe that judicial appointments were the dead hand of long defunct administrations, allowing Ronald Reagan to shape policy from beyond the grave. But this view has morphed completely. Now, with big new campaign contributors entering the fray, they believe that the court should make the decision they want at this moment, because they've given so much cash to candidates and bought all that TV time. And these businessmen demand results for their money.

Liberals believe that court decisions should set precedents that last for decades, if not centuries. They believe justice in the courts should be durable and dependable, and that justices must be able to make decisions independent of the whims of legislators who are looking to feather their own nests and improve their own reelection chances, and campaign donors looking to remold America in the feudal model.

The Supreme Court should be rendering lasting legal precedents, not political expediency. Expedient decisions, like Citizens United, are fleeting Pyrrhic victories that everyone will come to regret in time. I imagine Judge Roberts is already regretting that decision more than anyone else.

7 comments:

Morrison Waite said...

Yes, the political expediency of 'corporate citizenship'. Fucking Norquist and his band of Neo-Cons got that passed back in 1819 with Dartmouth College v Woodward.

Pretty much set in stone with the interpretation of the 14th amendment as set forth in 1886.

What? You didn't know that?

Fucking Norquist and his fancy 14th amendment. No wonder he is so hated.

juris imprudent said...

What is with the progressive need to lie? The mandate was a trial balloon to counter HillaryCare and never had widespread conservative support. The Massachusetts program is in big trouble and Romney can hardly take credit for success there and challenge PPACA. Well, not unless he wants to lie and twist like a liberal.

Mark Ward said...

Big trouble, juris? Let's see the evidence on that statement. Actually, here's your big chance to prove that you are a critical thinker. Spend a little time researching just exactly how the MA health care system is working. Don't slip into confirmation bias. A completely unbiased look. Can you do it?

Mark Ward said...

Big trouble, juris? Let's see the evidence on that statement. Actually, here's your big chance to prove that you are a critical thinker. Spend a little time researching just exactly how the MA health care system is working. Don't slip into confirmation bias. A completely unbiased look. Can you do it?

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Oh I do hope you consider the state itself to be a reliable and unbiased source.

And I do recall how fond you are of Forbes.

Or, there is this.

Only an idiot thinks there is no problem in Massachusetts.

Mark Ward said...

Well, the problem is, juris, you said "Big" trouble. The last paragraph from your first link says otherwise.

juris imprudent said...

It is nice to know I can always count on you for the childish riposte M. You must think PeeWee Herman is a brilliant philosopher.