Despite our recent appearance as co-commentators last week, Chief Justice John Roberts has spoken against my proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 19 members. According to the Washington Post, Roberts said that he opposed the proposal and added “Well, I suppose it depends on who gets to pick them.” For prior columns on my proposal, click here, here and here and here. (See also Unpacking the Court: The Case for the Expansion of the United States Supreme Court in the Twenty-First Century.” 33 Perspectives on Political Science, no. 3, p. 155 (June 22, 2004)).
Unfortunately the full remarks of Chief Justice Roberts (if there were any) are not given in the article. However, the brief comments noted do raise a couple of common objections and an opportunity to address them.
First, it is worth noting that my proposal calls for the additional justices to be phased in with no more than two new justices being selected in any one term. Thus, the expansion would occur over twenty-four years. There is no basis to assume that a conservative or a liberal — let alone a Republican or a Democrat — would select most of these nominees. The answer to Chief Justice Roberts on who will select the nominees is simply this: between 3 and 5 presidents. The even shorter answer is “the same folks that who picked you.” I am always struck how arguments against expansion would easily bar the current system. Nine is an arbitrary number and yet using the average size of appellate courts (en banc) and high courts of other nations is attacked as arbitrary. The current Court members were selected by different presidents and Senates and yet the same selection process is somehow suspicious for additional justices.
Second, I did not expect the current occupants of the Court to eagerly embrace a proposal that would dilute their current power. In his favor, I am sure that Roberts does not view this as a threat to his own power or those of his colleagues and that he simply feels that it works fine with nine. He has a great love for the Court both as a former litigator and the current Chief Justice. It is hard to break away from something so familiar, particularly in an institution that is revered by many. However, as discussed in the prior columns on my proposal, both en banc appellate courts and the high courts of other leading nations offered a better model for the Court with less of a concentration of power.
Like a conventional monopoly in the market, I do not expect current holders of these positions to be thrilled with adding 10 more justices and viewpoints on major cases. However, the recent decision on health care in my view vividly shows the dysfunctional aspects of a nine-member court. Indeed, this was the reason that the Washington Post ran the piece two weeks ago. As discussed in that column, it was likely that the decision would be another 5-4 opinion though experts divided on how the decision would come out. As stated in the column, it doesn’t matter. It is not the ultimate result but those deciding that is the focus of the proposal, which was made over ten years ago. Health care should not come down to just five justices, in my view.
Look at the health care decision and, as expected, it offers a powerful example of the concentration of power in the small court — as I discussed yesterday on NPR. While many have heralded Roberts’ vote as a vindication of his promise to bring greater unity on the Court, it is a 5-4 decision with the same rigid views — with the exception of Roberts’ vote. The liberal justices did not join Roberts in the key federalism ruling. This is the first time Roberts has ever joined liberals in a 5-4 decision. The opinion is fractured into a daunting number of opinions:
Majority: Roberts (parts I, II, III-C), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concurrence: Roberts (part IV), joined by Breyer, Kagan
Concurrence: Roberts (parts III-A, III-B, III-D)
Concurrence/dissent: Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor; and Breyer, Kagan (parts I, II, III, IV)
Dissent: Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent: Thomas
Clearly, we would continue to have concurrence and dissents on a larger court, but these individual or two member opinions have a pronounced impact on the smaller court. Currently, if one or two justices depart with their own opinion, it can result in a plurality opinion or throw the rationale for a holding in doubt. The ruling in the Stolen Valor Act case (Alvarez) is a good example. While the case was (thankfully) decided by a 6-3 margin, two justices (Breyer and Kagan) filed a concurrence suggesting that a lower standard of review of intermediate scrutiny might apply in cases of false speech. It is the type of slippery slope problem that the free speech community abhors. Most of us in that community believe that free speech requires a bright line rule that avoids such ambiguity. However, with just two justices departing (even from a six-justice majority), the meaning of the opinion can be questioned with only four justices supporting the bright-line rule.
The report of the effort by Justice Kennedy to lobby Roberts after he switched sides in the case also shows the dangerous concentration of power on the Court. The entirety of the health care matter turned on just one justice. In the end, I was critical of his opinion as internally conflicted and inimical to federalism. While I respect his commitment to his own views regardless of the consequences, the rationale for this sweeping case rested with one justice.
There is a curious argument making the rounds that Roberts switched his vote to simply show that the Court was not ideologically driven. I hope that that is not true. It would in my view be unethical to vote on a matter of constitutional interpretation against one’s own views just to achieve a political objective for the Court. Last night on CNBC, I told the hosts that I would not assume the worse about Roberts in such a motivation. Ironically, not only do I believe he voted his conscience, his vote did not show unity or a break for ideology for the Court. He simply switched a 5-4 ruling to the liberals, who did not join in his rationale. Finally, I do not subscribe to the view that there is something untoward in justices maintaining their jurisprudential positions on issues like federalism. Just as the liberals have a broad view of federal authority, the conservatives have a strong view of federalism. I would not want either side to abandon such views to achieve the appearance of unanimity or collegiality. These interpretations have meaning and importance. I would not view such artificiality as a “triumph” for the Court.
As for the expansion reform, I believe last week objectively shows the dangers of a court that is demonstrably too small in my view. People (including the Chief Justice) can differ. However, my main point is that we should have this debate. We have never discussed the optimal size of the Court. Once again, it does little to ask: why not 29 or 99? Our current number was largely the result of historical accident. I could just as easily ask why not 3 or 6. The point is that we should be able to discuss the optimal size or range civilly and objectively.
Finally, I wanted to note again that the reason for 19 justices is not just the average size of the courts discussed but also the interest in having 2 justices each year sit by designation on lower courts — returning to a worthy tradition in this country. That will also not go over well with the current members (any more than my proposal for televising arguments). However, this is a debate that belongs to all citizens and not just the current occupants of the Court.
Jonathan Turley
Source: Washington Post
I never thought about the size of the court but all your arguments make sense. It IS a lot of power and a huge responsibility, especially for the swing voter. Considering that the biggest objection seems to be who’s going to pick the judges, those reading are letting their initial bias keep them from reading all the way through with understanding. Headline reading is a common fault these days. (i’m frequently guilty.) The discussion has started.
Keep fighting the good fight Jonathan. It’s tough to do in a world of reactionism and blind partisans, but we need objective and reasoned voices like yours.
We all need to REASON MORE on the subject of all three branches. Hallowed does not mean cast in stone, as the election finale of Gore v Bush reminds us.
Some might live to see a better SCOTUS.
Hope so.
A couple questions: Why is it that you discount the other concurring justices opinions? What you’re calling a single-justice decision is, in actuality, a concurrence of five people. I think to pose it otherwise is to controvert the meaning of majority rule.
Second, why complain about the concentration of power in the Supreme Court, which has a democratic process constrained by centuries of jurisprudence, when the President can arbitrarily strike a law with the stroke of his veto? Isn’t that a far greater concentration of power within one man with no constraint whatsoever?
I’m definitely swayed by your argument, but these two stand out to me.
“There is a curious argument making the rounds that Roberts switched his vote to simply show that the Court was not ideologically driven.”
The argument is more complicated (and admittedly more cynical) than that in toto. It goes along the lines that this decision was a multiple advancement of the monied agenda despite being dressed in the terms of a loss;
1) namely that the decision while appearing to be a victory for a liberal cause is not because of the form of the decision being based on a taxation argument which plays short shrift to the Commerce Clause arguments but also effectively lays the ground work for truly eviscerating the Commerce Clause at a later date based on both the decision proper and the dicta (a long term goal of those more concerned with their pocketbooks than justice),
2) it weakens Federalism by allowing a taxation argument to circumvent the Federalism concerns addressed by the Commerce Clause arguments, the ruling gives Congress and people like Bohner and McConnell a tool to further erode Federalism via framing future moves in the language of taxation,
3) that the holding will serve to further rationalize privatization of governmental services and bolster the practice of using taxes to directly benefit for-profit corporations leeching money out of systems better served by a not-for-profit provision model and
4) that it provided the illusion of non-partisanship on behalf of a court badly in need of such a public relations move, but that considering the actions of SCOTUS under Roberts as a whole in favor of corporatism that such a singular action at such a critical juncture vis a vis timing and the need for a positive PR boost can rightly be viewed not only cynically but as a warning that a single data point does not make a trend.
I’m glad you have such a high opinion of the CJ’s integrity, Prof., but based solely upon this ruling and rulings past like Citizens United as they happened and the extreme role both money and partisanship now play in Washington and in SCOTUS (need I say more than mention the manifest and recurring conflicts of interest seen in Scalia, Thomas and Kagan all of whom persistently refuse to recuse themselves?), I also think any such cynicism is merited. Just because an argument has a cynical element doesn’t mean it is wrong. Democracy is dying the death of a thousand cuts and this decision will ultimately further that end.
Color me shocked…… And what’s said above……
A full discussion of what is wrong or needs improvement on the Supreme Court should preface the discussion of the solution. My objection to the present court is that it is way too stacked with New York (four Justices), New Jersey (two Justices who also talk like New Yorkers) and California (two Justices). Georgia should keep one Justice but not this one now sitting.
Geographical diversity taken together with background diversity would improve the Court. As for Geographical diversity I vote for one Justice from each Circuit. There are eleven circuits plus the DC Circuit. Omit DC. So add two justices.
Background diversity. We have no trial lawyers on this current Court. None have ever represented a criminal defendant in a criminal trial, much less in a death penalty case. The fact that they have all been judges and all went to Ivy League schools only means that they are myopic and not grounded in the real world of jury trial advocay and life. Hugo Black was one of the best all time Justice to sit. He was a trial lawyer, from Alabama, a U.S. Senator, and at one time a member of the Klan. Despite the last experiecne he was a better equal rights Justice than any that sit. The present bench has some minorites whom I would characterize as Pull The Ladder Up minorites. Sorry Clarence, Soto, Scalia, Alito (yeah Italians are minorities).
Reforms of the Court without changing the number or selection: 1) end ScaliaCare (free medical care) as they know it. 2) July, August, September–work months not vacation months. 3) Mandatory retirement at age 90. 4) Mandatory drug tests (oxycotton and all drugs) and mandatory senility tests. Remove those who fail. 5) Lose the wierd necktie on Ginsberg’s robes. 5) full disclosure of corporate and political associations by Justices. Ask Clarence why he had that Confederate Flag on the wall behind his desk when he was an Assistant Attorney General in Jefferson City, Missouri prior to getting appointed to Chairman of the EEOC and what he meant by the statement that he “was Unreconstructed”.
Nineteen of these schmucks is not better than nine. Deduct three from New York and two from Jersey and one from California right now.
Listen to the oral arguments on CSPAN. Six justices speak Brooklynese. Tirty turd and a turd (33rd Street and 3rd Avenue). All evoke Ivy League hauty tauty.
Subscribe…..
The fact that Justice Robert’s vote on the court has astounded liberals (in that it is unique to his pattern) and sent conservatives into apoplexy, as well as the general presumption that any major decision will be 5-4 along established partisan lines speaks eloquently to the dysfunction of the Court. Anything that would prevent that dysfunction from lingering for decades would be a boon for America.
BarkinDog, 10 more members of the court is bound to increase all sorts of diversity. Don’t knock Brooklynese. It isn’t a sign of ignorance. There are any number of regional dialects that are just as difficult to listen to.
I tried to pick a shorter clip but this is just too funny to cut, besides making the point about about regional dialects.
And don’t miss Marisa…..
There are few, if any, that do not believe the need for improvements to the current system of justice. Obviously the Republican form of government has not provided the justice originally envisioned and Jefferson and others informed us in advance of the potential problems of having little or no recourse against the Judiciary. It seems to me that every society throughout history has suffered for the very same problems. The Judiciary has been and is just a rubber stamp for the current oligarchy in political and economic power at the time and the majority always suffers for it.
I believe an all important question arises, that how do you create a system of “truthful and equitable” justice without having those in political and economic power (the oligarchs) negatively intervene, especially when the two powers are joined in a collusive effort to manipulate the system. It has been shown time and time again over even centuries that this is exactly what happens, corrupting the judicial system.
There are well known unresolved problems and working issues related to a direct democracy, as some call the Swiss system and I have come to realize and now believe that a democracy Republic has the same fatal flaws. see goo.gl/gnvhe
Giving that much power to such a few people is in my opinion just one of the problems. Even with 19 Justices, the influence of the oligarchy over the judiciary is just to entense for any human being to survive it’s advances. Instead of 5 people to inflence we would than have only 10 to deside a majority opinion. I do not believe that it near enough and the Citizens still would have little or no recourse.
There either needs to be a Citizens review board over the decisions or the Citizens need some sort of methodology to fire, fine and sanction Judges other than by popular vote at the Circuit, but especially at the Appellet level.
The comments avoid the principles of legal hermeneutics.
How do you interpret legal text?
How do you interpret constitutional text, the supreme legal text?
The majority had it right, the commenters upthread have it wrong.
Three clauses were in play: 1) the commerce clause, 2) the necessary and proper clause, and 3) the authority to tax clause.
Which inform us that congress has the power to: 1) “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”, 2) “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”, and 3) “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”.
The principles that have developed, through the evolution of legal hermeneutics, include the principle that since these clauses appear in different places with different words, they cannot be interpreted to mean the same thing, lest any interpretation eviscerate any one or more of them that then will have been interpreted to mean the same as any other.
The arguments in comments are conflating these clauses rather than distinguishing them from the others, so as to maintain their individual meanings one from the other.
Proffesor:
You have some support out in the nation,Listening to a rebroadcast of the Thom Hartman show the other night a caller called in about this very subject citing your article and was very happy with your opinion as was Thom Hartman who also liked your idea.
@Dred = What about the property rights protected under Atrticle IX of those not enumerated in the Constitution and the involentary servitude clause. Under your senario, the government has the right to do anything they choose as it pertains to our money and property. Give me the specific requirements of when I should be forced to give up my rights for the common good and when they should be protected. Is that not what the tugglewar is all about. Libertarianism vs Communism? The protection of individual rights vs the best interests of the majority?
I think Roberts resigned from Maggie’s Farm:
I think the most important point about Justice Roberts comments is that he seemed most concerned about the political gain or loss,depending on who picked the justices. Very telling.
hskiprob 1, July 3, 2012 at 2:43 pm
@Dred = … Under your senario, the government has the right to do anything they choose as it pertains to our money and property.
============================================
It is not my scenario, nor yours, nor your grandfathers.
These principles are “ancient”:
(NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS).
Amusing and interesting comments:
Betty Kath:
I did not hear any accents. I thought the “U’s” and their attorneys were well and clearly spoken.
And the expertise of Ms Vito, in an area on which some, because of three things they are born with and therefore feel they are experts superior to her gender, was most enjoyable to hear.
I remember the days when timing would be done with a D-cell and a flashlight bulb.
—————————-
EnioBob,
That was a pre-arranged call by one of the Professor’s clerks—-or was it you that called. Always reliable evidence.
——————————-
Hskiprob,
Now you lost me: I interpret your first post as historical evidence proving that the justice system has been in collusion with government and economic power since—whenever you wish to start counting.
Your second one emerges with this:
“Libertarianism vs Communism? The protection of individual rights vs the best interests of the majority?” Now individual rights are somewhat clear, but how did the governing forces and economic powers become transformed into the “best interests of the majority”. With wide margin for misunderstanding on my part, I pose the question.
———————————
Dredd,
Loved your authoritative quotes. Could you as easily find equally authoritative opposing ones??
Their positions could also be interpreted to approve ANY alternative reading of the statute under question……so long as it is not contravened by the Constitution. A bizarre example: The constitution does not prohibit raping thy neighbor’s wives, however many he may have. We, the judges, thus say that we interpret this statute as interpreted by “US” to mean that the abovementioned act is included in this statute, and may stand unhindered.
=======================================
I retire behind my FOS defense, ie dry sarcasm used liberally. And hope my attempts at legalese will be regarded kindly.
707, I love Marisha Tomei, a very talented actress. Her accent was only slightly exaggerated. She may be from Queens. My relationship with my car is: turn on the key, it starts, I drive. turn on the key, it doesn’t start, call someone. I’m a bit more talented that that with my car but it’s a lot less interesting that it used to be.
Wish I could add something OT but I’m really out-classed.
If anyone doubts Roberts “integrity” on this issue? You need to see this . . .
Roberts wrote both Obamacare opinions
A Court source tells Salon the chief justice wrote the majority opinion and much of the dissent in the ACA case
By Paul Campos”
Janus is a slang term for people double-speaking people not to be trusted for a reason.
I watched Roberts confirmation hearing. I was impressed by his intelligence and his use of words that allowed him to obfuscate. I tended to not like him based on intuition alone, well, maybe his smugness contributed. My impression was that he would do whatever he wanted and he would be able to produce a rationale to support it. He didn’t disappoint (unfortunately) He did that in Citizens United. I think he did it in ACA.
BettyKath,
Different classes. I string up Christmas tree lights and you take a scalpel and needle and thread to do brain surgery.
Liked your take on Roberts. Isn’t it frustrating to see someone like him? Which way will the snake turn next?
Full moon rising here. Do you see the same, no it will rise six hours later there.
BTW you are a guest blogger, it seems. Good choice by JT.
PS I used a jumper cable to start my car (dead battery) yesterday. BIG achievement. Daring to ask for help was the hardest part.
@Dredd. Everyone knows what the judiciary is supposed to be doing. That was like repeating the Bills of Rights to us. You missed my question. What specific set or sets of criteria, should the courts use to determine when the Citizens should acquiesce our individual rights and when they should not? For instance, what would make public education either constitutional or unconstitutional? Especially when it comes to private property rights, the courts have been a RUBBER STAMP for government. The Kelo case comes to mind but also We The People vs. the U.S. when the 1st Amendment right to Redress of Grievances was denied. Other than the elemental rights of speech, press and assembly, which they have curtailed by permitting in designated areas, what rights are really left. The right to property ownership is heavily impeded by annual rents in the form of ad valorem taxes, most know as property taxes. In essence, it is rent paid to the government, which is a usurpation of private property rights. The government has literally cart blanch to do as they please and the courts continually rubber stamp this.
From those who profit from government, there are no private property rights that are not subject to usurpation. Go figure.
We have a federal income tax, the 2nd platform of communism, in a country founded on liberty and the protection of individual property rights with a Constitution and Bill of rights to specifically protect us.
I’m sold on your idea, Professor Turley. It makes great sense to a nonlegal person.
harry skip:
how are things?
Gene H:
that is interesting. But then maybe he truly believed he was wrong, arent people allowed to change their minds?
What a flake he must be. Now neither the left nor the right is going to respect him. The left because they now know he is their errand boy and the right because he just violated his oath.
idealist707 1, July 3, 2012 at 4:05 pm
….
Dredd,
Loved your authoritative quotes. Could you as easily find equally authoritative opposing ones??
….
=========================
No.
That is the law.
I am not saying I agree or that I think it is the best rule of interpretation, but it is the law for ages.
Next is, when that way of upholding it is found, and it becomes the decision, the rest is dictum.
The runners up in the Miss America contest don’t do Miss America.
We are profound over here dood.
hskiprob 1, July 3, 2012 at 5:53 pm
@Dredd. Everyone knows what the judiciary is supposed to be doing. That was like repeating the Bills of Rights to us. You missed my question. What specific set or sets of criteria, should the courts use to determine when the Citizens should acquiesce our individual rights and when they should not?
======================================
I suggest a little trip down to the community college for a course called “Civics 101″ and “Blasphemy”.
You don’t seem to like law.
Four from New York and two from Jersey. Six of Nine. They represent that part of the country where people know everything. West of the Jersey state line is a big muck until their minds land in LA or Frisco. I lived in a reitrement community wholly populated with Yorkies. If you tell them you just got in from St. Louis they will ask you how the weather was in Michigan. They are such smart citizens that they have to leave their state when they retire because they can not afford the taxes on their homes each year–it well exceeds their social security payment. It is folks like these who bring you Citzens United. Owned by Bain and have no shame.
Question for fellow commentors: How many of the present Nine have ever defended a human in a state or federal court on a criminal charge?
How many have ever sued an insurance company on behalf of a citizen who got cheated?
How many have ever tried a jury trial as a lawyer, not a judge?
Their prior histories were something like this: Harvard or Yale, clerk for a judge, government work, teaching, judgeship in the DC Court of Appeals, or some federal court of appeals, and government job like Solicitor General, hence Supreme Court.
barking dog:
you make a lot of sense with what you are implying.
Expand that to congress critters being required to have met a payroll and started a business and you may be on to something. Or even just worked in the private sector as something other than a lawyer.
707
“Full moon rising here. Do you see the same, no it will rise six hours later there.
BTW you are a guest blogger, it seems. Good choice by JT.
PS I used a jumper cable to start my car (dead battery) yesterday. BIG achievement. Daring to ask for help was the hardest part.”
—————————–
Not likely to see the moon tonight thru the overcast. Heat wave stopped by a nice gentle rain.
Not a guest blogger. Just opinionated about a lot stuff.
I understand the difficulty in asking for help. I’m getting over it – there’s just too much I don’t know or can’t do. I’ve always been the helper, not the helpee. It’s time for turnabout.
I don’t know about Roberts. I’d like my intuition to be wrong but it has been right more times that it has been wrong.
OTOTOT
For those tired of Roberts demonstrating that he is a free agent (sports anyone?) available for purchase this season, try:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-agrees-to-pay-3-billion-in-fraud-settlement.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120703
Then try this one on how BIG PHARMA regards 3 Billion as CDB, and how like Wall Street they avoid criminal prosecution. In the meanwhile, like mortgage holders, the patients effected by marketing and off-brand sales suffer without even a campaign wave from Obama.
Or if you prefer to read decisions and weep, try:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/gsk-docs.html
NO, WAIT, IT WAS NOT URL TO THE USUAL ARCHIVE, BUT TO DOJ PARTICIPATING AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS. GOT THAT? Prosecution kisses defendant on both cheeks. Guess which ones.
GSK wins big.
Is that why they dumped Bin Laden in the drink. Because he refused to do a joint press conference with Obama.
Notice any suspicious side-effects lately. If nothing else the price of drugs must have registered in your wallet/purse.
BettyKath,
Good stuff.
I run around here begging so much that no one could reasonably expect me to have difficulties cleaving off of my high horse to ask for help.
You say:
“Just opinionated about a lot stuff.”
Favó subject: We all are. Because it is so difficult to change our biases. But some do if for other more perverted reasons. No names needed.
Like a well-known figure I must rest from my labors and let the air clarify.
(I really thought I had seen your name bylining a blawg here. Delisional hopes. Thought that right had won against might, for the first time.)
Time: 0130 ie one-thirty AM.
Bron,
Have you read the dissent? I think there is a pretty strong difference between changing your mind and working both side of the street.
“For instance, what would make public education either constitutional or unconstitutional?”
The General Welfare and Commerce Clauses and the taxing and spending Clause for starts, but here’s the rest of your homework, skip.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/federal.html
Gene,
That Campos story is pretty amazing stuff. Roberts seemed to switch in mid-stream.
raff,
Almost like he’d had a tactical epiphany.
Gene, Raff,
Do you think it possible that in writing the dissent Roberts saw that he was going down the wrong path? It seems that they usually engage in interpretations of laws, not whether the whole thing or parts of the whole are constitutional at the get-go. I’ve read that the Court tends to give Congress and the President the benefit of the doubt (probably a poor choice of words) before striking a law, i.e. finding it unconstitutional.
In that light, isn’t it possible that he saw the validity of the tax rationale? He didn’t make up the tax rationale. It was presented in oral arguments. I guess I’m wondering if maybe his rationale and motives aren’t as politically driven as I have previously thought.
bettykath,
Considering that the tax rationale is a facile argument (and I know that I’m not the only one who thinks this – Mike A. has used the word facile in describing that opinion)? I’d like to be able to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt, but after Citizens United and other subsequent decisions, the pattern of behavior (i.e. favoring corporatism and corporations over other considerations), I find it difficult if not impossible to not see this decision as a callously designed political maneuver.
Gene and bettykath,
I do agree that Roberts is a political animal, but I am just amazed how his arguements turned around on a dime, if the Campos article and others like it are accurate. He may have gotten cold feet,but he may have also realized that if the Court had rejected the ACA in its entirety that the prestige of the Court would have been damaged. I just don’t know.
I think it is a great idea to expand the S.C. What I’d like to know is how they pick cases to hear. Don’t they get like 11,000 petitions a year? People do so much work and spend so much money and then their work and their hopes are just thrown in the trash.
How quiet it is. No new blawgs. No comments. Weird.
Don’t tell’em man, that dood had forgot this is the Cinderella hour. The USA Independence Day.
When blawging is forbidden, commenting is forbidden, and only a limited number of activities in thís universal expressioon of patriotism.
I was thinking of making a scurrilous list of such activities: example—making up spontaneous gangs to attack McD to place orders for 5000 Big Mac’s (the fire department will respond to that emergency—–since the police is dealing with the girl scout gangs doing the same at Burger King’s.)
So to the others I say, keep manning your barbecues, don’t let the small ones drink “lighter” fluid, especially if they want to spit it on the fire.
And keep’em loaded. You never know when a terrorist, or some “crimnul” might attack your csstle.
I’m trying to rmemember something appropriate to end with a real tribute—but the image of George saying “Mission accomplished” on the carrier deck keeps interfering.
Some epiphanic moment to reflect on in thanksgiving?
Not a one. Guess my birth will have to do, but that’s kinda hazy now.
So anyway, Happy Fourth! That’s bigger than a fifth!
Gene, Raff,
Maybe a smoking gun re: his motives will appear but I won’t hold my breath.
I do know that I had preconceived ideas about voting and could make arguments for my choices. I was presented with a difficult to understand argument for an alternative. As I was preparing my arguments to this different approach I realized that I was wrong and did a turn-about. Literally, mid-sentence near the end, I had an Oops! doesn’t work. Did a reassessment and finished with support of the argument that I had, minutes early, rejected. So instead of arguing against the proposal, as I would have been prepared to do, I now support it.
Elsewhere I mentioned IRV – that’s Instant Runoff Voting. It’s all there (my brain). It just takes awhile to find sometimes.
bettykath,
To be clear, although I discuss it in terms of motive, ultimately motive proper is irrelevant in light of effect.
Gene,
To be clear, although I discuss it in terms of motive, ultimately motive proper is irrelevant in light of effect.
——————————–
Yes, But I’d still like to understand his motive and/or his rationale for going where he did. His motive would give a pretty good clue to his character. I’m very skeptical of his character and would like good evidence that I’m wrong.
In terms of effect, I see the mandate as a gift for insurance companies, a natural fit for his demonstrated pro-corporate bias. There’s been discussion that it’s a detriment to federalism but, honestly, I don’t really understand what that is or how this decision erodes it. Is it basically a concept of states’ rights and this decision has the federal government superseding them in a precedent-setting way?
If the Court were made up of 19 Justices and the vote was tied at 9 and 9 then one Justice would decide the case. Just like now.
Sides. Changing sides. Which sides? The Liberals are not always the Liberals and the Conservatives are not always the Conservatives. Look at the case of: Michigan v. Bryant No. 09-150, 2010 term. Confrontation Clause where Scalia and Ginsberg are in dissent standing up for the rights of the defendant.
Gene, Yea yea, The socialist always invoke the commerse clause and the General Welfare Clause. They’re the one always used to take away individual rights. What about Article IX? The retention of my rights even when not enumerated in the Constitution.
You’ve obviously one in the courts and our society is paying the price for it.
@Bron, Well, thank you. How about you? I can’t beleive that you’re still wasting your times with these dudes. They have lot’s of opinions but can’t answer a single question that would put them in a position in oposition to their biases and obsurd perceptions. I remember when I first started arguing with the libertarians. When you finally have to recongnize your inconsistances and fallacious arguments. The truth does set you free though but it also confinds you in a position of having to deal with people whose existance is based on an erroneous foundation. Ad in our devilish nature of lies and deceit and you really have to protect you ass in every transaction. No more leaving the front door open at nights in most neighborhoods. The corruption has finally filters down to the majority.
hskiprob:
“They’re the one always used to take away individual rights. What about Article IX? The retention of my rights even when not enumerated in the Constitution.”
*********************
I found nothing in Article IX that gives you or anyone else the right to be a free rider on the US healthcare system. Everyone invokes the joys of “capitalism” when policy works in their favor, or calls the policy “socialism” when it doesn’t. Labels aren’t really helpful.
@mespo727272 — You are erroneously assuming that I want to be a free rider on the U.S. Healthcare system. Why would I want to be a part of a system that is 43 in the World in health. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/06/AR2009090601630.html – This is a pretty balanced article on Japan’s system. Japan ranks first in overall health and you can read about their strengths and shortcomings as it is very similar to waht I think this new healthcare law will create. However Japan is a lot more holistic in their medical practices where the U.S. is dominated by allopathic practisioners. Remember that Japan has been in a recession for almost 15 years. As the U.S. reenters a recession, you might want to consider the future economic consequences of socialism on our society. Some have even coined the phrase “The Great Recession”. However as Cities and Counties continue to default on their liabilities and as commodity prices continue to rise over the next 5 years, you guys are going to have to rethink your strong inclinations to redistribute wealth and why it has never worked over long periods of time. Our system is unsustainable.
Thinking that you can alter behavior by force has been a very dangerous experiment.
hskiprob:
“As the U.S. reenters a recession, you might want to consider the future economic consequences of socialism on our society. Some have even coined the phrase “The Great Recession”.
**********************************
Well, the Great Depression was a direct result of unbridled capitalism, so it seems the economic system chosen has little to do with the occurrence of recessions or even depressions for that matter.
hskiprob:
Thank you for the article on Japanese health care. I find one statement there curious in view of your thesis. In the first paragraph the author writes, ” It [Japan] does so by banning insurance company profits, limiting doctor fees and accepting shortcomings in care that many well-insured Americans would find intolerable.” I find that statement the antithesis of capitalism. Do you subscribe to socialized health care but capitalistic markets elsewhere?
@mespo727272 — I’m am not an advocate of socialized medicine. I would be an advocate of repealing those laws that cause quality healthcare to be unafordable for the majority. I believe that socialized medicine is only a patch for a much deeper and larger number of social problems, facing our society, so I can’t truthfully say that under the current system I’m really supprised that so many people want almost free healthcare. Just remember from many years of analysis of this subject, I generally believe that you get what you pay for. A hundred bucks a year is virtually free. Ask any child or woman if they want something for free, and you will probably get a 95%, yea man but somebody has to end it paying for it. It is always the negative ramifications that gets us into trouble and we just aren’t really willing to honestly address those issues. You see what is happening at this moment to a number of very socialistic countries in the EU as there is no longer enough producers to pay for the costs of government. So they keep on throwing more fiat currency at the problem, therefore debasing their money without really solving the underlying problems. The long term results of socialism are always catastrophic for the majority for primarily that reason, so it will be interesting to see the time line as things unfold. It is much easier to pass bad laws than it is to repeal them.
“I’m am not an advocate of socialized medicine. I would be an advocate of repealing those laws that cause quality healthcare to be unafordable for the majority. I believe that socialized medicine is only a patch for a much deeper and larger number of social problems, facing our society, so I can’t truthfully say that under the current system I’m really supprised that so many people want almost free healthcare.”
No one has said free or nearly free. The contention is that private for-profit health care insurance is a parasite upon the system that jacks up prices and denies coverage in the name of profits, i.e. profits are taken unjustly and disproportionately and siphoning off money that could be and should be spent on patient care, not perks and ridiculous executive compensation. One way to do this is to socialize health care insurance and make it operate on a not for profit basis. Another way to do this is to mandate maximum profits on health care insurance. Either way, the solution is antithetical to your laissez-faire ideology which offers no solution at all and has indeed been the driving force behind the malfunctions and inequities of our current for-profit health care insurance model. ” I would be an advocate of repealing those laws that cause quality healthcare to be unafordable for the majority.” There are no laws keeping health care unaffordable for the majority, skip. There are only the profit motives of insurance companies keeping health care insurance unaffordable for the majority. Your myth that deregulation is a panacea strikes again.