The verdict on John Roberts Supreme Court
Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 02:07 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
28 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
- Boston man confronts Infowars conspiracy nuts over 'false flag' claim
Archives
 |
| John Roberts |
There is no possibility for surprise and no pretense at it even. Was Bush v. Gore a surprise to you? Will the current Supreme Court hand President Obama and the Democrats a formidable victory in an election year?
Not a chance. That's why two thirds of the American public now believe the Court, instead of being impartial guardians of the rule of law, are in fact ruled by the convective politics of the individual judges.
That's also why it's public approval has plummeted to a historic low. The endless 5-4 decisions on almost every critical issue that have come before the Court have seen to that.
We live in the era of a Tea Party conservatism that is ideologically extreme, that scoffs at any compromise, and that dismisses out of the hand the legitimacy of its political opposition. There is no reason to expect that this Court will do anything other than reflect the current ideological viewpoints of contemporary Tea Party conservatism.
According to the New York Times in its first five years the Roberts court issued conservative decisions 58 percent of the time. And in the term ending a year ago, the rate rose to 65 percent, the highest number in any year since at least 1953.
It seems important to point out that American health care provision is already seen as an international disgrace (50.7 million have no health insurance at all) but I see no urgency among conservatives to change it.
That's why, just a year ago in Los Angles, a scene like this was unremarkable: 'They came with rotting teeth, tiered glasses and broken bodies. In the predawn darkness outside the Los Angeles Sports Arena, they lined up last year by the thousands, waiting as the sun burned their backs for healthcare they could not afford.'
You can read the rest HERE if you need a reminder of what life will be like without the protection of Obamacare. Sadly, if the Affordable Care Act is overturned today you can expect that neither party will be willing to touch the issue for years.
So today most conservatives will probably celebrate a 'historic' ruling.
For the rest of you, you're living in a brave new conservative world where more of you will soon lose your company health insurance, or your premiums will rise as your benefits shrink, and more and more of you will skip medical treatments at all because of the cost. For the rest of you my advice is simple: never grow old and never get sick.
28 comments
Next
Page 1 of 2 pages
eiriamach | Jun 30, 2012, 10:13 AM EDT
BrianO, I quoted from the Court's decision at Jun 29 8:58: the Massachusetts solution is suffering precisely because it worked! It restored rationality and quality to the state's hospitals. Out-of-staters drive to Massachusetts for better quality and less expensive health care than they can find at home. Their use of the system drives up the costs beyond what Massachusetts residents can sustain. The Supreme Court examined the problem in Massachusetts. It's like the disadvantage that the ancient Gaels had as they settled in various places in Europe and began agriculture and other peaceful lifestyles. Precisely because of their civilized pursuits, they were patsies for barbarian raiders, who pillaged and rampaged through their settlements. If there's only ONE civilized tribe, the uncivilized wipe it out. The ACA regulates INTERSTATE commerce in health insurance because any state that reforms its health care system as Massachusetts did is immediately disadvantaged in competition with neighboring states whose systems drive their residents elsewhere. Only the fed can solve such problems in a federalist system!
Report abuse
BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 12:48 AM EDT
Affordable care act, it makes me laugh out loud with the ignorance of that description. Look at Massachusetts and see how the insurance costs are close to doubling, as the government squeeze the evil businessmen to discontinue their healthcare in favor of the crappy mass health.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 29, 2012, 06:41 PM EDT
Ephraim, I think the answer to your question is yes. Chief Justice Roberts is not the brightest flame in the torch of Justice. Richard A. Epstein, professor at NYU law school and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford U, writes in today's NY Times, "Chief Justice Roberts has ignored this fundamental principle: If direct regulation is beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause (as he held), then taxation as an indirect route to the same regulation should be off limits as well (as he failed to hold). This is a baby that should not be split. His attempt to do so undermines his ruling, the court and the Constitution." Roberts tried to roll back the commerce clause interpretation to pre-FDR laissez faire, which the GOP would be rejoicing about if they understood it. Obama's strategy with the ACA was right! If the Chief Justice would not allow the mandate under the commerce clause and would insist on calling it a "tax," a single payer system would have no chance with this Court.
Report abuse
EphraimKibbey | Jun 29, 2012, 01:01 PM EDT
@eiriamach - OR did Roberts eschew the commerse clause in favor of the right to tax to enhance future states rights arguments against federal mandates based on commerce and to give the GOP a taxation argument for the upcoming election both while keeping the Roberts Court's hands clean of the death of America's first foray into "universal" health care? IF he forsees a 2012 GOP Grand Slam of executive and both legislative branches, he may assume the ACA is doomed anyway. He's a smart guy but is he that smart?
Report abuse
BrianO | Jun 29, 2012, 11:27 AM EDT
@ eiramach to be Constitutional it is deemed a tax.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 29, 2012, 09:14 AM EDT
It's not a tax, jflanagan. If the fed were a single-payer insurer, then it would be a tax, just like Social Security and Medicare, both administered by the federal gov't. In passing the ACA, the fed has opted to regulate interstate commerce with regard to health insurance and medical-care costs by distributing the burden of costs on citizens and the states equally and equitably. Justice Roberts voted correctly but misunderstood the reason for keeping the ACA mandate. Other Justices reasoned correctly, in accord with the Obama administration's primary argument. Robert's brain is too constrained by his conservative reading of the commerce clause to take in the reality of the health care costs problem.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 29, 2012, 08:58 AM EDT
jflanagan charges "fibbing"-- READ the Court's decision: "States cannot resolve the problem of the uninsured on their own. Like Social Security benefits, a universal health-care system, if adopted by an individual State, would be "bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose." Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 644 (1937). See also Brief for Commonwealth of Massachusetts as Amicus Curiae in No. 11-398, p. 15 (noting that, in 2009, Massachusetts' emergency rooms served thousands of uninsured, out-of-state residents). An influx of unhealthy individuals into a State with universal health care would result in increased spending on medical services.... Higher taxes and increased insurance costs.... States that undertake health-care reforms on their own thus risk "placing themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors." Davis, 301 U. S., at 644. See also Brief for Health Care for All, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 11-398, p. 4 ("[O]ut-of-state residents continue to seek and receive millions of dollars in uncompensated care in Massachusetts hospitals, limiting the State's efforts to improve its health care system through the elimination of uncompensated care.")--Ginsburg
Report abuse
jflanagan | Jun 29, 2012, 08:28 AM EDT
I see a comment that people are flocking to Massachusetts because they have mandated health insurance. Then how come Massachusetts is consistently 41st in population growth for the past four decades, including the last decade? Someone is fibbing to make their argument sound good.
Report abuse
jflanagan | Jun 29, 2012, 08:24 AM EDT
The justices have ruled the legislation is okay because it is a tax yet, when debating the legislation, they President and Congress insisted it wasn't a tax, even getting angry with commentators (left and right) and reporters who asked why it wasn't a tax. So the politicians can pass laws increasing taxes but lie about them to avoid the pressure against taxes. Sounds like a sad day for our representative republic and a plus for King Obama.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 29, 2012, 07:11 AM EDT
If you look at the opinions actually written in the Supreme Court's decision, you can see how politically partisan Chief Justice Robert's decision is. He gives, as Justice Ginsburg writes, a "crabbed" reading to the commerce clause, a reading designed to restrict the federal govt's ability to resolve serious economic problems between and among the states. For example, out-of-state residents flock into Massachusetts for health care since that state has mandated health insurance that has enabled its hospitals to improve their delivery systems and quality. Ginsburg's decision is based on the history of the Commerce Clause. She justifies the Affordable Care Act under the power of the federal gov't to regulate the availability of health services under the Constitution's commerce clause, exactly where it belongs, since the Act addresses a serious and growing problem of health care costs that affect every state budget and every citizen, both those who do have health insurance and those who cannot or choose not to purchase it. As Congress continues to work on health care reform, Ginsburg's reasoning, not Robert's, will guide attempts to re-empower consumers of health care, as well as guiding states' efforts to encourage or discourage people from using its health care facilities.
Report abuse
faberm1 | Jun 28, 2012, 11:25 PM EDT
Wow! Cahir, you never were so wrong as in this piece. Maybe you better stop, take a breath, count, and begin to understand that there are people (many conservative people) who put this country and the constitution above their own personal interests. That can't be said for the "free thinkers" here who pretty much ALL think alike. Please stop writing on American Political matters. You're an embarrassment.
Report abuse
seanomelb | Jun 28, 2012, 07:11 PM EDT
Peggy you can call it a tax, health insurance a surtax or anything you like but it is still cheap health care and as posters below stated Romney introduced it in MA and most first world and indeed most second world economies have mandated health care.It is medical insurance Peggy as they say a rose by any name smells the same.
Report abuse
Scrivner | Jun 28, 2012, 05:10 PM EDT
Obamacare has been ulpheld! I feel sorry for our Canadian neighbors, where will they go when they need quality medical care within a reasonable time frame?
Report abuse
EphraimKibbey | Jun 28, 2012, 03:59 PM EDT
Now the Health Insurance Companies have to rebate their profits to their policy holders. I am watching for my check. If you own Health Insurance Company stock, you may want to dump it as dividends may be a thing of the past. By the way, the tax is only if you are an emergency room free-loader and do not buy any Insurance. If you buy the Insurance, no tax. Just in, NRA fans - the first Federal mandate to buy a product was when it was required that every able bodied male own a rifle to defend his country. Sounds constitutional to me. In Mass., they love their Romneycare and it has cut health care expenditures. Mitt Romney is on tape saying that it was a model for a National Program. For every commercial with him saying repeal it, there will be one with him endorsing it. Its definitely not medicare for all but it is a step in the right direction!
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 2 pages
Report abuse