Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
OMG!
Did you hear the big news? Obamacare is DEAD! After facing some questions on par with the Spanish inquisition, solicitor Donald Verrilli completely blew it, it's all over, and let's get ready for our new president, Mitt Romney.
Well, at least that's what the "liberal" media said yesterday (even though the actual decision won't be handed down until June). Since when are they all in the tank for the opponents of the law? They keep saying that people are being forced to buy health care. That's not true at all. You don't have to buy it at all. If you don't, you pay a tax, which is very, very Constitutionally valid.
Even the actual liberal media is behaving irrationally (see: hysterical old ladies). They seemed to completely ignore the tough questions that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy asked of Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, who are challenging the law. For example, Roberts told Carvin that he was not addressing the government's point, "which is that they are not creating commerce in health care. It's already there, and we are all going to need some kind of health care; most of us will at some point."
And Roberts accepted the fact that the mandate was not an order but a tax. This is important to note because on Monday in response to questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, Verrilli noted that under the law, a person who chooses to pay the tax penalty rather than comply with the mandate will not be considered in violation of the law. So it’s a choice — not a unilateral command. If even one of the conservative justices agrees, he could vote to uphold the law on unexpected grounds. It's entirely possible that you would have four votes to uphold the law under the Commerce clause and two votes to uphold it under taxing power.
Kennedy said the government might be right that the interwoven markets of health insurance and health care are unique. "The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries," Kennedy said. "That's my concern in the case." I also thought it was interesting that Clement acknowledged here that a system of national health care is likely constitutional even though the individual mandate was not.
This brings us to what may happen if the mandate portion is struck down. Robert Reich has an interesting take on this.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions. When this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they’re willing to remove that requirement – but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes. If they did this the public will be behind them — as will the Supreme Court.
But how could this happen?
Americans don’t mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new health care law. There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits. But requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is different because private companies aren’t directly accountable to the public. They’re accountable to their owners and their purpose is to maximize profits. What if they monopolize the market and charge humongous premiums? (Some already seem to be doing this.)
All of this makes me wonder if this is the president's back up plan. Not only is he a constitutional scholar but he's a very smart and pragmatic guy. His opponents are being terribly naive if they are assuming that he fast tracked this case without having multiple contingency plans.
The other way to look at all of this is political. If parts of the law are struck down, that takes a galvanizing principle out of the campaign. In fact, if the law is upheld, the base is going to be very motivated to get out and vote for repeal (even though we all know that Romney isn't going to do that if he wins).
So, I guess I'm not really worried either way it turns out. It's too bad that some liberal folks are so worried that they have all but given up because I don't think they are really considering all of the possibilities here. And that's why I'm truly going to enjoy the "winning the argument/proved them wrong" victory dance that the right will do if the mandate is struck down.
Enjoy it while it lasts, folks!
Well, at least that's what the "liberal" media said yesterday (even though the actual decision won't be handed down until June). Since when are they all in the tank for the opponents of the law? They keep saying that people are being forced to buy health care. That's not true at all. You don't have to buy it at all. If you don't, you pay a tax, which is very, very Constitutionally valid.
Even the actual liberal media is behaving irrationally (see: hysterical old ladies). They seemed to completely ignore the tough questions that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy asked of Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, who are challenging the law. For example, Roberts told Carvin that he was not addressing the government's point, "which is that they are not creating commerce in health care. It's already there, and we are all going to need some kind of health care; most of us will at some point."
And Roberts accepted the fact that the mandate was not an order but a tax. This is important to note because on Monday in response to questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, Verrilli noted that under the law, a person who chooses to pay the tax penalty rather than comply with the mandate will not be considered in violation of the law. So it’s a choice — not a unilateral command. If even one of the conservative justices agrees, he could vote to uphold the law on unexpected grounds. It's entirely possible that you would have four votes to uphold the law under the Commerce clause and two votes to uphold it under taxing power.
Kennedy said the government might be right that the interwoven markets of health insurance and health care are unique. "The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries," Kennedy said. "That's my concern in the case." I also thought it was interesting that Clement acknowledged here that a system of national health care is likely constitutional even though the individual mandate was not.
This brings us to what may happen if the mandate portion is struck down. Robert Reich has an interesting take on this.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions. When this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they’re willing to remove that requirement – but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes. If they did this the public will be behind them — as will the Supreme Court.
But how could this happen?
Americans don’t mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new health care law. There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits. But requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is different because private companies aren’t directly accountable to the public. They’re accountable to their owners and their purpose is to maximize profits. What if they monopolize the market and charge humongous premiums? (Some already seem to be doing this.)
All of this makes me wonder if this is the president's back up plan. Not only is he a constitutional scholar but he's a very smart and pragmatic guy. His opponents are being terribly naive if they are assuming that he fast tracked this case without having multiple contingency plans.
The other way to look at all of this is political. If parts of the law are struck down, that takes a galvanizing principle out of the campaign. In fact, if the law is upheld, the base is going to be very motivated to get out and vote for repeal (even though we all know that Romney isn't going to do that if he wins).
So, I guess I'm not really worried either way it turns out. It's too bad that some liberal folks are so worried that they have all but given up because I don't think they are really considering all of the possibilities here. And that's why I'm truly going to enjoy the "winning the argument/proved them wrong" victory dance that the right will do if the mandate is struck down.
Enjoy it while it lasts, folks!
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Too Fucking Good!
This just popped up in comments down below in my post regarding Clarence Thomas. I decided to bring it out front because it's just that good!
Even without the other shenanigans in his home town, the Citizen's United decision and Ginny's organization allow Thomas to collect an unlimited amount of cash from corporations under the guise of his wife's salary and "foundation" income. If it looks like a payoff, and smells like a payoff, it is a payoff.
The guy doesn't say anything during oral arguments, doesn't ask any questions, doesn't have an ear for language, and his clerks seem to write all his opinions for him.
He says he doesn't like the adversarial back and forth of the courtroom, but that's exactly what trials and courts are about. He seems to be deathly afraid of putting his foot is his mouth and seeming like he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He simply doesn't belong there.
The only reason he's there is that foolish Democratic Senators let the Republicans guilt them into putting an unqualified and incompetent judge on the Supreme Court.
Mega!
Even without the other shenanigans in his home town, the Citizen's United decision and Ginny's organization allow Thomas to collect an unlimited amount of cash from corporations under the guise of his wife's salary and "foundation" income. If it looks like a payoff, and smells like a payoff, it is a payoff.
The guy doesn't say anything during oral arguments, doesn't ask any questions, doesn't have an ear for language, and his clerks seem to write all his opinions for him.
He says he doesn't like the adversarial back and forth of the courtroom, but that's exactly what trials and courts are about. He seems to be deathly afraid of putting his foot is his mouth and seeming like he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He simply doesn't belong there.
The only reason he's there is that foolish Democratic Senators let the Republicans guilt them into putting an unqualified and incompetent judge on the Supreme Court.
Mega!
Time to Go Buh Bye
I think it's time for Clarence Thomas to either recuse himself from some cases or step down as a Supreme Court justice. He's not fooling anyone anymore. A recent article in the New York Times illustrates this further.
His involvement with Harlan Crow should be more than enough but what's really insulting to the nation's intelligence is Virginia Thomas-wife of the justice. Ms. Thomas is an unabashed Tea Party activist who regularly raises money for their causes. She founded a group called Liberty Central and on their web site she is described as "a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham and other talk radio hosts. She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully."
But hey, Ginny ain't on the SC, her husband is...so there is no way that he's biased, right?
His involvement with Harlan Crow should be more than enough but what's really insulting to the nation's intelligence is Virginia Thomas-wife of the justice. Ms. Thomas is an unabashed Tea Party activist who regularly raises money for their causes. She founded a group called Liberty Central and on their web site she is described as "a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham and other talk radio hosts. She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully."
But hey, Ginny ain't on the SC, her husband is...so there is no way that he's biased, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)