It appears that Congress is not the only branch with falling poll numbers. According to Pew Research Center, the Supreme Court now is viewed favorable by just roughly 50 percent of the public.
Only fifty-two percent of Americans hold a favorable view of the Supreme Court today. Notably, “[t]here are virtually no partisan differences in views of the Supreme Court: 56% of Republicans, and 52% of both Democrats and independents rate the Supreme Court favorably.” Of course, popularity is not a requirement for the Court, which was given jurists with life tenure to protect it from public opinion. The Court has often been the most unpopular when it has been the most right, such as on desegregation.
Yet, it is striking to see how all three branches remain unpopular with most Americans. Once again, it is striking how the public holds its government in such low regard. Yet, citizens feel incapable to forcing change due to the monopoly of power exercised by the two parties. I have previously written how we need to address this crisis with fundamental changes in our system. The Framers gave us the tools to force such changes, including reforming the Supreme Court. I have previously called for the Court to be expanded to 19 members. However, there are other proposals for reform, but none are being considered in a political system locked down by two parties.
Source: Pew
Blouise,
Whether you like it or not, Thomas still counts. Maybe Anita Hill can keep trying.
Blouise,
Although it is true Thomas does not speak at oral Argument, it is errant to say he doesnt participate in the cert process, that is apochryphal.
Matt Johnson,
Thomas doesn’t count so divide 7,000 by 8.
The Supreme Court gets about 7,000 appeal requests a year. There are nine justices. Divide 7,000 by 9.
“Sotomayor recently wrote that Cevron deference can be extended if the interpretation is done by higher level members of an agency not say line personnell” … I think I found it … related to the 1984 decision so commonly called the Chevron deference?
Deference is a powerful weapon in any agency’s arsenal and anyone who seeks to diminish the power of an agency should find a way to challenge that deference.
“agencies are not a law unto themselves” (Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, Fourth Circuit) … Too much deference by the courts. Acting as police, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, agencies increasingly act as a law unto themselves and do a majority of the federal government’s work. Through this arrangement, Congress is put in a win-win situation: the government can delegate decision-making to agencies and avoid political accountability.
As regards Tribal Nations: I know Obama has hosted the White House Tribal Nations Conference each December for the last three years and 2011’s meeting was held at the Dept of Interior in December.
(In music we often use quodlibet for humorous effect 😉 )
*^*^
!!!!
Blouise,
Well we still have the following models. 1 Public Interest 2 the public adminstrative approach 3. The public choice analysis of regulation.
Breyer has written extensively on the three, in his text, and he was a little vocal for example with kennedy and Airline regualtion. Scalia’s DC’s Circuit Court of Appeals another source..
BOOM
blouise,
I have been reading some of the releases of the the newly revived ACu, so there remains hope for comprehensive reform, but it is painfully slow. Verkuil is certainly astounding and few are as versed as he in the topic. I have his text, and breyers, and know to a degree of scali’s expertise. The Chevron rule has recieved much attention, Sunstein now has written to a Zero step, addition to Chevron, and Sotomayor recently wrote that Cevron deference can be extended if the interpretation is done by higher level members of an agency not say line personnell.
In the arean of agency overlap, say the Indian Council extending itself to agency help in comprehensive reform, for example The Interior, is working with Education. I belive this happened in December 2011.
The whole topic is probably the most exciting quodlibet in academic treatment of law ina while. Non delegation aspects of chevron, can the court defer to an agency ? To what extent would interstitial legisaltion by the USSC be too far afield of interpretting laws that Constitutionally require all legialtive powers be vested in Congress, instead are rule making quasi laws, which have had Chevron treatment? In a largely unccoutable 4th branch, that of regulatory governance, there are fertile fields of discussion. In Indian affars we have an imperio en imperium, this is the stuff of Solon, and Holmes.
bhoyo,
The recent history of the ACU is fascinating. I risk the understatement of saying I have a great deal of respect for Paul Verkuil and applaud Obama for that appointment..
Are you referring to the The Regulatory Accountability Act? Rules that somehow make it through the RAA’s process would tilt against the public interest and in favor of powerful special interests like Chevron … but that’s just my opinion on informal and formal rule making impacts.
I know Chevron has a heavy presence in so many “advisory” roles within the Interior and Education departments but I’m not familiar with the specific symposium you referenced
Blouise,
Although I have only perused the document (speed reader) and will give it fuller attention this afternoon, two sentences jumped out and bit me … “Justices who appear to lack an understanding of the foundational principles underlying federal Indian law and who are unfamiliar with the practical challenges facing tribal governments.” and “…—from the Court deciding an average of 150 cases each term before 1990, to deciding an average of 80 cases each term more recently.” (Have they actually cut their work load almost in half?)
Karma, indeed
Wow… Bang what a marvelous oppurtunity for a few week digression, and the topics are fascinating. It opens doors to quasi legal decisions in the Bureaus, quasi executive, and the infamous informal and formal rule making impacts. The combined efforts of agencies, for example Dpet of the Interior, and the Dept of Education symposium of last year, was there a Chevron impact ? The nature of the grievances in the Rehequist years contra the Roberts Court. In the current case book I am using in regualtion and Dergulation American casebook Series there are three authors, Harrison, Mrogan, and of course Paul Verkuil. Paul verkuil is of course obama’s appointee to the ACUs.
http://www.civilrights.org/healthcare/reform/the-affordable-care-act-american-indians.html
Oro Lee,
Although I have only perused the document (speed reader) and will give it fuller attention this afternoon, two sentences jumped out and bit me … “Justices who appear to lack an understanding of the foundational principles underlying federal Indian law and who are unfamiliar with the practical challenges facing tribal governments.” and “…—from the Court deciding an average of 150 cases each term before 1990, to deciding an average of 80 cases each term more recently.” (Have they actually cut their work load almost in half?)
Karma, indeed
People’s fear of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the 21st century, given the Bush v. Gore and United Citizens decisions and the uncertain fate of the Affordable Care Act, is a nightmare which has afflicted Native Americans for generations — and it is only getting worse in this new century.
http://sct.narf.org/updatememos/tsct-10-year-report.pdf
Karma, perhaps?
Your problem, Tony C., or at least one of them, is that you are careful with the meaning of words, and another one, perhaps worse, is that you don’t seem afraid to follow them (particularly when they are combined with others) to their conclusion. It completely messes up name calling for one, and for another, the use of hot button topics as a substitute for coherent argument.
@Swarthmore: It is disingenuous to pretend that something is a big deal when it is not; it is disingenuous to use the $1 BILLION dollars out of the context of what they means in normal everyday experience, it is disingenuous to try to convince women they will be any more hard hit by Obamacare ending than men would be if that is not true.
In general, it is disingenous to pretend that minor differences between men and women are giant differences between men and women and to pretend that women are being more repressed than men when “more” means a fraction of a percentage point in difference.
Disingenuous does not mean anti-factual, it means purposely misleading, and it is purposely misleading to pretend that a billion dollars is a huge difference in healthcare, when it amounts to literally pennies a day.
On top of that, it IS true that women access healthcare more than men, and that women live longer than men, and there are more elderly women than men, so perhaps averaging an extra $10 or $20 a year per women actually makes perfect sense when the insurance is sold by a for-profit company; they are at a higher risk of having to pay for some catastrophic illness in a woman than they are in a man.
I have no problem with highlighting disparities between men and women; the pay difference is a real disparity and in my mind real evidence of discrimination. The healthcare difference is not; the truth is that the vast majority of women get health insurance through the company they work for, or the company their husband works for, just like I prefer to get my insurance from my spouse’s work place, a hospital, which offers better insurance than my university.
But it also means I get exactly the same insurance coverage, to the penny, as my spouse. It also means my spouse is getting the same insurance coverage options as all the MALE employees in her hospital, which is about half of them. That same dynamic works across the country; the reason women may pay more is that in some companies they can OPT for more, and do, for whatever reason, to account for that fraction of a percent difference. It is a difference in the noise that could be explained by a thousand choices, and pretending it is a big deal by touting the sum of One Billion Dollars is using a BIG NUMBER that is microscopic in context and therefore, in my opinion, purposely misleading.
Would anybody be outraged to find out that women, on average, pay three tenths of one percent more than men for insurance?
http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/AronsJessica.html Here is the woman that did the report. I see no reason to believe that her work is “disingenuous.”.
@bettykath: How much more substantially? If only half the women in the country have health care, that is 50M, and the differential cost is $20 per year instead of $10, and that is STILL trivial.
I actually do not believe that assertion; the vast majority of women, like my wife, have health care through their job and it covers everything that could be wrong with EITHER a man or woman, as well as procedures and tests that apply almost exclusively to women; such as mammograms and regular gynecological exams. (The vast majority of men do not get regular reproductive examinations). My wife’s insurance also covered her contraception, covered her hysterectomy, and still covers her estrogenic supplementation.
The vast majority of men, including me, do not use Viagra, and even if that were an issue it is hardly offset by the women-specific preventive care that IS covered by most insurance companies.
As for unfair salaries, that is irrelevant, this was a discussion of whether $1B for healthcare made a difference. Divide $10 by 80% and you get $12.50, divide $20 by 80% and get $25. Per year. It remains a trivial amount in the face of thousands of dollars paid for health care, so trivial that to claim women will be impacted more than men if Obamacare is struck down is completely disingenuous, just like the rest of the article she quoted is disingenuous, as I pointed out.
Tony, I agree with just about everything you posted here but “I wonder if you realize how trivial that is. There are 200 million adults in this country, 100 million of them are women, and $1B/100M = $10 per year. Is this the level of debate we are at, discussing a $10 annual difference in premiums?”
I think if you count only those women who have and pay for medical insurance, the $10/yr would go up substantially. And their premiums help pay for men’s viagra while not paying for their contraception. And as pointed out by Woosty, women make less than 80% of what men do for comparable work.
We have a guide dog in our pack whose pal is legally blind and legally blonde. The pal is in law school and Jocko helps her read her case books and reviews the audio tapes of her class which she takes down and brings home. Jocko says many of the students are bored in con law and want to go to work for big law firms and are not interested in the Constitution.
Tony C.
1, May 3, 2012 at 11:42 am
@Swarthmore: women pay $1 billion more in premiums than men each year for the same set of benefits.
I wonder if you realize how trivial that is. There are 200 million adults in this country, 100 million of them are women, and $1B/100M = $10 per year. Is this the level of debate we are at, discussing a $10 annual difference in premiums?
————————
Tony, according to US demographic (Wikipedia) ‘There were 155.6 million females in the United States in 2009. The number of males was 151.4 million. At age 85 and older, there were more than twice as many women as men. People under 20 years of age made up over a quarter of the U.S. population (27.3%), and people age 65 and over made up one-eighth (12.8%) in 2009.[14] The national median age was 36.8 years.[14] Racially, the U.S. has a White American majority.’
I don’t know if you’ve paid attention to the whole conversation regarding womens health issues, health insurance, premiums, contraception etc. If you have you will forgive me, it just doesn’t SEEM so going by the above statement. Women in the workforce earn a lot less than men for comparable jobs.
Apparently women are the new ‘separate but equal’ (and we all can interpret that correctly now….). Charging more, giving less (look at contraception debate, breast CA etc.) does not just harm your wives, daughters and other women in the USofA, it will burden an allready overburdened healthcare system at the expense of those who need it the most.
Just 1 more way for corporate money mongers to not be real. Question, Are you an Insurance broker???
‘Trivial’….seems to be how you view women….didja know that?
@Swarthmore: women pay $1 billion more in premiums than men each year for the same set of benefits.
I wonder if you realize how trivial that is. There are 200 million adults in this country, 100 million of them are women, and $1B/100M = $10 per year. Is this the level of debate we are at, discussing a $10 annual difference in premiums?
The author is wrong in any case; the Supreme Court can strike down the individual mandate by itself, just ask the lawyers on here. They are under no obligation to provide any solution whatsoever to achieve any of the goals of Obamacare without it. They are, as Justice Roberts said in his confirmation, there to call balls and strikes and not to legislate.
He is right, the Supreme Court has struck down law in the past and offered zero alternative to achieve the objective, because the government often passes laws that are impossible to reconcile with the Constituion because they are diametrically opposed to Constitutional principles.
So the SC can just invalidate the individual mandate and nothing else and leave the rest of the law intact. Women would lose nothing (except an unconstitutional demand). The job of figuring out what to do next is up to the Congress and President.
The only way to change the law would be by a concerted action of the Congress and President to pass NEW law, which the President can veto or Democrats can easily filibuster.
Unless, of course, Democrats do not trust their Representatives, Senators and President to hold the line on repeal.