Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[Tex]

I thought Orrin Hatch's reply was hilarious: "It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is 'activist.'" That succinctly sums up Obama's judicial philosophy.

For me, the most frightening part of oral arguments was when Breyer hypothesized that merely existing as a human being was engaging in commerce, that simply being born could be considered an involuntary entrance into the market. I can't believe this is the type of genius we have on our highest court.

[Pelado]

From CNN's impartial lead legal analyst:

It is simply not the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgments. The awesome, and final, powers of the Justices are best exercised sparingly and with restraint. Their normal burdens of interpreting laws are heavy enough. No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be remembered, is not exactly their strength, either.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/09/120409taco_talk_toobin

[Pelado]

In cases stemming from the war on terrorism, the court consistently ruled against the Bush administration, though the justices had to get around more permissive World War II-era precedents. The justices were not willing to let the government claim unlimited powers of arrest and detention, even in the name of such a good cause as national security.

In the health-care case, the roles are reversed: Conservatives warn against growth of federal power, and liberals are defending it. Still, it’s remarkable how much the two sides’ arguments mirror each other. In the war-on-terror cases, Bush’s liberal opponents were the ones positing slippery slopes, which conservatives dismissed as far-fetched.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-war-on-terror-and-obamacare-mirror-images-of-the-same-issue/2012/04/02/gIQAaDlhrS_story.html

[Surfah]

From CNN's impartial lead legal analyst:



http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...co_talk_toobin

I read that linked from RCP this morning. :igiveup:

[Jacob]

It strikes me that the whole narrative in this healthcare debate is backwards.
Conservatives fear a single-payer system, while liberals fear that conservatives are out to make corporations (insurance companies) richer.

But the truth is that Obamacare is a very corporatist policy. Much moreso than the current system, which is what makes it even worse.

Meanwhile, many republicans (John McCain's 2008 campaign, Paul Ryan's medicare proposal) support something like a single payer system. Under such a system, the government would pay for health insurance for everybody via a $5,000-$6000 tax rebate while forcing insurance companies to insure everybody (probably something similar to Obama's community ratings and risk pooling system). Under such a system, everybody who purchased insurance would be entitled to the $5,000 cash prize from the federal government. This $5,000 would cover insurance for everybody (high deductible)while leaving the individual to select coverage that is right for them and purchase even more coverage if they choose without the government telling insurance companies that every post-menopausal woman must subsidize the birth control of every young woman, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong here. But it seems to me that the democrats are the corporatists and the republicans are the proponents of single-payer.

[Pelado]

Obama may have really stepped in it when calling out the Supreme Court. Now his Justice Department is under court order to admit in writing that Obama was wrong by Thursday:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

While I didn't care for Obama's comments on the Supreme Court, I'm still not a big fan of this judicial grandstanding. It's unseemly.

[Tex]

While I didn't care for Obama's comments on the Supreme Court, I'm still not a big fan of this judicial grandstanding. It's unseemly.

Based on this reaction and the general ho-hum reaction to the President's comments on Trayvon Martin, I'm beginning to wonder if people really think the bully pulpit actually matters. It seems like the President is just some guy giving his opinion. Might as well be in a talking-head-box on a cable news program.

Let's be clear: what Obama said yesterday was outrageous. It was a clear political attack on an independent judiciary, and wholly inappropriate for a man who holds that office. The 5th Circuit's request is small ball by comparison.

[byu71]

Obama may have really stepped in it when calling out the Supreme Court. Now his Justice Department is under court order to admit in writing that Obama was wrong by Thursday:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

While I didn't care for Obama's comments on the Supreme Court, I'm still not a big fan of this judicial grandstanding. It's unseemly.

I heard some analysts on TV say the administration will just ignore it and get cited for contempt.

Seems overboard for the Judge, but it also seems beneath a President to get himself involved in these pissing contests.

He could have surrogates do it, but the guy really likes to have his mug on the TV everyday. He gets interviewed at every major sporting event there is.

[SoCalCoug]

it just seems a bit incongruent that people who make a practice of spewing out hate-filled criticism of the President of the United States are up in arms about an "unprecedented" criticism by the President of the Supreme Court.

Also, I wouldn't call it "unprecedented" - his criticism of the Supreme Court puts him in the company of Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts.

http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=13862

[SoCalCoug]

It strikes me that the whole narrative in this healthcare debate is backwards.
Conservatives fear a single-payer system, while liberals fear that conservatives are out to make corporations (insurance companies) richer.

But the truth is that Obamacare is a very corporatist policy. Much moreso than the current system, which is what makes it even worse.

Meanwhile, many republicans (John McCain's 2008 campaign, Paul Ryan's medicare proposal) support something like a single payer system. Under such a system, the government would pay for health insurance for everybody via a $5,000-$6000 tax rebate while forcing insurance companies to insure everybody (probably something similar to Obama's community ratings and risk pooling system). Under such a system, everybody who purchased insurance would be entitled to the $5,000 cash prize from the federal government. This $5,000 would cover insurance for everybody (high deductible)while leaving the individual to select coverage that is right for them and purchase even more coverage if they choose without the government telling insurance companies that every post-menopausal woman must subsidize the birth control of every young woman, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong here. But it seems to me that the democrats are the corporatists and the republicans are the proponents of single-payer.

Isn't the part of the health care act that is under fire by the Supreme Court a compromise provision that was actually proposed by the Republicans?

[byu71]

it just seems a bit incongruent that people who make a practice of spewing out hate-filled criticism of the President of the United States are up in arms about an "unprecedented" criticism by the President of the Supreme Court.

Also, I wouldn't call it "unprecedented" - his criticism of the Supreme Court puts him in the company of Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts.

http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=13862

Glad you recognize that it isn't incongruent of people who don't spill out hate-filled criticism to be up in arms about his gaffe and his clumsy effort to tone it down the next day.

[UtahDan]

I thought Orrin Hatch's reply was hilarious: "It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is 'activist.'" That succinctly sums up Obama's judicial philosophy.

I am completely as a loss to say whether Obamas remarks on judicial activism or any Republican calling him out on it is more hypocritical. I was astonished that a liberal President who was once a law school professor would go to the "the people have spoken, judicial activism is bad!" card. But since Republicans have said that about virtually everything they don't like for my entire life time, but not the things they don't, they are shameless to call Obama out on it.

Judicial activism is a garbage argument 95% of the time it gets trotted out. So much so that the public in general is confused about what it is and where the real debate on that issue lies.

[Tex]

it just seems a bit incongruent that people who make a practice of spewing out hate-filled criticism of the President of the United States are up in arms about an "unprecedented" criticism by the President of the Supreme Court.

Also, I wouldn't call it "unprecedented" - his criticism of the Supreme Court puts him in the company of Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts.

http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=13862

That may the dumbest excuse for an Obama defense I've read yet. Pointing to the flaws of other legitimately good presidents seems like a strange way to defend yourself. "They were just as stupidly partisan as Obama, so it's ok!" This is a winning argument?

Setting that aside, the guy doesn't even understand the issue. The complaint is not whether Obama "bitterly disagrees" with a given Supreme Court decision, it's that he's suggesting overturning a law thwarts the democratic process. It's a direct attack on the idea of judicial review (which, by the way, has had 200 more years to take hold than when Jefferson opposed it).

One thing we can agree on, the only thing unprecedented about Obama's idiotic statement is that he thinks overturning a law is unprecedented.

[Jacob]

Isn't the part of the health care act that is under fire by the Supreme Court a compromise provision that was actually proposed by the Republicans?

No. It is not.

[Tex]

Judicial activism is a garbage argument 95% of the time it gets trotted out. So much so that the public in general is confused about what it is and where the real debate on that issue lies.

That's principally because liberals have co-opted the term, with some success.

There is no way declaring any law unconstitutional--whether passed by R's or D's--is judicial activism. The whole point of the Supreme Court (assuming you believe in judicial review) is to determine fidelity to the constitution. Now, you or I may disagree with their interpretation, but it isn't "activist."

"Activism" as a conservative would define it is the judiciary creating new (and often extra-constitutional) rights or expanding government by fiat, something totally different.