What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Interesting speculation in the Wall St Journal today....basically, IF Kennedy decides to support the Constitutionality of PPACA, then Roberts also would vote in favor, so that he could write the opinion (and by implication make it as restrictive as possible).

How amusing would that be, if the PPACA is upheld yet the four liberal justices write a dissenting opinion anyway!!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

That would be the worst of all possible worlds for the GOP politically, though. Not only would it be upheld, but they couldn't do their usual "liberal activist judges" bit. I mean, they could, but it would ring even more hollow than usual.

I love that Court watchers are saying they have "no idea" how Kennedy is going to rule. There's something marvelously chaotic about that. It also indicates that it's not just paint-by-numbers ideology for one member of the Court.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
That would be the worst of all possible worlds for the GOP politically, though. Not only would it be upheld, but they couldn't do their usual "liberal activist judges" bit. I mean, they could, but it would ring even more hollow than usual.

I love that Court watchers are saying they have "no idea" how Kennedy is going to rule. There's something marvelously chaotic about that. It also indicates that it's not just paint-by-numbers ideology for one member of the Court.
Click to expand...

I think it shows we live in a sad time when you know the Supreme Court outcome will be 5-4.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
I love that Court watchers are saying they have "no idea" how Kennedy is going to rule. There's something marvelously chaotic about that. It also indicates that it's not just paint-by-numbers ideology for [at least] one member of the Court.
Click to expand...

Many court watchers apparently were also surprised when Roberts appeared unsympathetic to the plaintiffs regarding the Medicare mandate..."they had no trouble accepting the money before" or something like that.

It does sadden me when it appears that some of the Justices already have their conclusions and then work backward to find some contorted twisted convoluted reasoning to justify it. "Penumbras" that "emanate" from the Constitution, how shoddy a line of reasoning is that! especially when one could advance arguments of a much higher quality and still arrive at the desired result.

It scares me when a Justice says publicly that people should have a constitutional right to certain material things, has that woman (Ginsberg) never heard of scarcity? talk about an insular sheltered lifestyle!

From time to time they do produce unusual alignments. Scalia and Roberts have surprised me more than once with their flexibility.

If I had to rank them on a spectrum, I'd put Alito and Thomas together on the far right, Scalia to the right, Roberts to the right of center, Kennedy in the center, Sotomayor to the left of center (this "wise Latina woman" does appear to be much more than just an affirmative action choice, she probably will surprise Obama by her ability to think independently rather than respond reflexively), and then Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kagan far left.

Given that an outright majority of people in the US view themselves as right or center-right, the Court's make-up is skewed slightly to the left of the population these days, but only slightly. The problem for me is that I don't see much in the way of actual reasoning from Breyer, Ginsberg, or Kagan; I see more cleverness in developing justification after the fact. Roberts is refreshing; yes he slants to the right but not reflexively so, but thoughtfully so. Thomas is just an enigma to me.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

bronconick said:
Based on the feds using interstate commerce to justify raiding your pot garden grown for personal use in a state that doesn't forbid personal use, yes.
Click to expand...
So basically the interstate commerce clause is going to be used to justify any mandate the government wishes to foist upon us. Lovely, just lovely.

Oh well, at least we got abortion out of it, so there's that.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

FreshFish said:
Interesting speculation in the Wall St Journal today....basically, IF Kennedy decides to support the Constitutionality of PPACA, then Roberts also would vote in favor, so that he could write the opinion (and by implication make it as restrictive as possible).

How amusing would that be, if the PPACA is upheld yet the four liberal justices write a dissenting opinion anyway!!
Click to expand...

If they're in the majority, they write a concurring opinion (or concurring in part, dissenting in part)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
If they're in the majority, they write a concurring opinion (or concurring in part, dissenting in part)
Click to expand...

I knew that, it was merely a lame attempt at wit on my part; as I figured that what you phrased as "concurring in part" to be about 1% and "dissenting in part" to be about 99%.

In other words, the so-called "concurring" opinon would be aptly summarized as:

"How dare you give such a [insert adjective here] justification for this bill!!!!
WE think that the justification should be [whatever]."
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Here's a droll thought....whatever the decision on PPACA, each of the Justices writes their own opinion in support or dissent....that would be a good thing for the country, I think.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I don't quite understand how a single-payor system inherently eliminates personal responsibility.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I think for amusement's sake whenever Kennedy retires, he should get to pick his replacement. 5-4 forever!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Priceless said:
Congress didn't legislate it. That's why the SG explained that they are "societal norms." Congress didn't say, "We have a crisis where poor people go to the ER, are refused care and die." It's the other way around. People who don't have the economic means go to the ER and receive care. The cost is then spread out to everyone. The Congress is responding to the morality in society. We, as a society, are not willing to stomach people being turned away by the hospital because they can't pay for care. If someone has a heart attack, the first paramedics on the scene do not go through the victim's wallet to look for proof of insurance before putting them in the ambulance. Maybe in Scalia's view they should.
Click to expand...
This except they had court cases that held the hosp/ambulance drivers responsible for driving to hosp farther away d/t lack of financial means
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

bronconick said:
I think for amusement's sake whenever Kennedy retires, he should get to pick his replacement. 5-4 forever!
Click to expand...
Replacement? Just put a silver dollar on the Court and have it flipped by a robot for each decision. Heads = vote with the conservative wing; tails = vote with the liberal wing.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Bakunin said:
Replacement? Just put a silver dollar on the Court and have it flipped by a robot for each decision. Heads = vote with the conservative wing; tails = vote with the liberal wing.
Click to expand...
If there is a case on gambling, does the coin get recused?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
Well, no, not "this".

Congress certainly did legislate it.
Click to expand...
Wow. I am old. I didn't think that was that long ago. I do remember the coverage that led up to that law tho. It was all over the news.

This was about the same time they started to try capitated healthcare in our state. The insurances were paying a set figure for each patient in your panel (I think it was 11$ a month). The complex patients were being jetisoned from practices because they had the capability of bankrupting the practice if they were very ill or just if they needed to see you all the time because they were worried well. LIl was undertreated for his asthma and we switched Docs after the Doc he had was treating him suboptimally so he could save cash. Wanted us to use an inhaler on him (6 months old) rather than prescribe a nebulizer. They eventually legislated that away somehow (don't remember but it went away) but we don't learn. One of the Boston Hospital groups just signed an agreement with BCBS to try again. Bad motivation- you get the cash if you see the person less but if the person over-utilizes you lose big $. So the Docs see them less but the hospital takes the hit for the sequelae. Not that I haven't said this before but medicine should not be tied to for profit/cash.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
Well, no, not "this".

Congress certainly did legislate it.
Click to expand...

So, like Justice Scalia, you would 'remove the obligation' and allow patients without means of payment to die. Make no mistake, when he blithely talks about not obligating yourselves, that's what he means. So if you're in a car crash and knocked unconscious, the first thing paramedics on the scene will do is look for an insurance card or call to check your credit score. That's a solid policy. That will certainly help the unemployment problem, welfare, Social Security etc. Dead people collect no benefits. Not only would you be eliminating the 40-50 million uninsured, you would knock off quite a few who are underinsured. I say "you" not because, like Justice Scalia, I'm excluding myself from society but rather I'll be among those no longer living. I hope you enjoy your new society.

Reminds me of a quote from Dickens...
 
Priceless said:
So, like Justice Scalia, you would 'remove the obligation' and allow patients without means of payment to die. Make no mistake, when he blithely talks about not obligating yourselves, that's what he means. So if you're in a car crash and knocked unconscious, the first thing paramedics on the scene will do is look for an insurance card or call to check your credit score. That's a solid policy. That will certainly help the unemployment problem, welfare, Social Security etc. Dead people collect no benefits. Not only would you be eliminating the 40-50 million uninsured, you would knock off quite a few who are underinsured. I say "you" not because, like Justice Scalia, I'm excluding myself from society but rather I'll be among those no longer living. I hope you enjoy your new society.

Reminds me of a quote from Dickens...
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you've managed to miss the point entirely.

EMTALA is just fine. But the fact that Congress passed it, contra the SGs argument, does not give Congress extraconstitutional powers to find a way to pay for it.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

leswp1 said:
Wow. I am old. I didn't think that was that long ago. I do remember the coverage that led up to that law tho. It was all over the news.

This was about the same time they started to try capitated healthcare in our state. The insurances were paying a set figure for each patient in your panel (I think it was 11$ a month). The complex patients were being jetisoned from practices because they had the capability of bankrupting the practice if they were very ill or just if they needed to see you all the time because they were worried well. LIl was undertreated for his asthma and we switched Docs after the Doc he had was treating him suboptimally so he could save cash. Wanted us to use an inhaler on him (6 months old) rather than prescribe a nebulizer. They eventually legislated that away somehow (don't remember but it went away) but we don't learn. One of the Boston Hospital groups just signed an agreement with BCBS to try again. Bad motivation- you get the cash if you see the person less but if the person over-utilizes you lose big $. So the Docs see them less but the hospital takes the hit for the sequelae. Not that I haven't said this before but medicine should not be tied to for profit/cash.
Click to expand...
Les

Would you give RomneyCare a + or a -?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top