The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[jmh]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Since when did only nutjobs own firearms? That is a very offensive stance for you to have.

You're misreading my post. I don't believe that only nutjobs own firearms; I do believe that only nutjobs feel the need to own unregistered firearms with no paper trail.

No, but at least that approach would certainly have fit in better with the rest of the idiotic tax code. The public is used to seeing tax credits/deductions set up as rewards for certain behaviors.

This. Hey, if you accept that taxes can be used for this purpose (which seems to be well-established, though people certainly might disagree) then I don't see it as any worse to use them to encourage people to have health insurance (which I think is generally viewed as a societal good since you're taking responsibility for your own care) than to use them to encourage people to own homes (which is probably seen the same way, though I think it's also a subsidy to the homebuilding industry).

A Chief Justice appointed by George W Bush finds a law thought up by Mitt Romney to be Constitutional and somehow it's Socialism...

This point has been peeving me. State governments and the federal government have different powers, and I think you can reasonably argue that the state-level policy of Romney is acceptable but the same policy at federal level isn't. So describing the dispute over the ACA as objection to "a law thought up by Mitt Romney" is inaccurate.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

State governments and the federal government have different powers, and I think you can reasonably argue that the state-level policy of Romney is acceptable but the same policy at federal level isn't. So describing the dispute over the ACA as objection to "a law thought up by Mitt Romney" is inaccurate.

In principal, I agree. In reality, its not working that way.

So Romney comes out claiming its a states right issue. Fine. Then later his spokesman comes out inferring that its dangerous for America. Then a PAC comes out saying its socialism. Then Romney calls Obamacare terrible.

If its states right issue...fine, then Romney should stump based on states rights...period. Problem is that state's rights won't win Romney an election.

So it becomes a shell game where Romney infers that its states rights...until he's in a position to bash Obama, then its just bad policy (even though it was similar to his 'bad policy'). Then when he's on the defense...its back to states rights.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

This point has been peeving me. State governments and the federal government have different powers, and I think you can reasonably argue that the state-level policy of Romney is acceptable but the same policy at federal level isn't. So describing the dispute over the ACA as objection to "a law thought up by Mitt Romney" is inaccurate.

I understand this argument, BUT, one of the core concepts of state rights is that they are the laboratories for democracy. Obama liked what Massachusetts did and used it as a model for the country. Why is that wrong?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Great read on the inner workings of how the decision came down...and Roberts role:

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The court's private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them. (Continued)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Not to pile on, but exactly right about how Mittens ain't getting away with saying the law is the balls for Massachusetts but unconstitutional, wrong, socialism, etc when applied to the country. That's frankly a ridiculous position. Either you are for making people get insurance or you're against it. Either you are for using the taxing power of the (state or fed) govt to bring about this change or you're not. Either you think mandatory insurance brings down overall healthcare costs as people are hitting the ER less for basic care or you don't believe that's true. For once in his life Williard is faced with a cut and dry issue, and he's going to have to take a stand.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Not to pile on, but exactly right about how Mittens ain't getting away with saying the law is the balls for Massachusetts but unconstitutional, wrong, socialism, etc when applied to the country. That's frankly a ridiculous position. Either you are for making people get insurance or you're against it. Either you are for using the taxing power of the (state or fed) govt to bring about this change or you're not. Either you think mandatory insurance brings down overall healthcare costs as people are hitting the ER less for basic care or you don't believe that's true. For once in his life Williard is faced with a cut and dry issue, and he's going to have to take a stand.

You really expect Capt. Flip Flop to take a stand?

When Mitch (McConnell) was asked how the GOP was going to insure the 30 million Americans who have insurance under Obamacare but immediately would not when he repeals it, Mitch's response was "Huh"?

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You're misreading my post. I don't believe that only nutjobs own firearms; I do believe that only nutjobs feel the need to own unregistered firearms with no paper trail.

You'll change your tune when the jack-booted union goons show up on your doorstep in SWAT gear to take away your cold, dead, hands. Or something.

(I wonder how much hard-earned taxpayer money is going for jack-boots, anyway? And are the jack-boots made in China?)

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You really expect Capt. Flip Flop to take a stand?

When Mitch (McConnell) was asked how the GOP was going to insure the 30 million Americans who have insurance under Obamacare but immediately would not when he repeals it, Mitch's response was "Huh"?

Why should 30 million Americans have health insurance? Is sounds like a good idea, but what's the cost? We've thrown trillions at poverty, and it still exists. Is there any hope that having more people with insurance is going to make them healthy?

Rockefeller was for curing the cause, not the symptoms. Methinks that many government programs attack the effect, not the cause, as in "you're hungry, have a fish." As opposed to "you're hungry, here's a fishing rod and bait."

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Why should 30 million Americans have health insurance? Is sounds like a good idea, but what's the cost? We've thrown trillions at poverty, and it still exists. Is there any hope that having more people with insurance is going to make them healthy?

Rockefeller was for curing the cause, not the symptoms. Methinks that many government programs attack the effect, not the cause, as in "you're hungry, have a fish." As opposed to "you're hungry, here's a fishing rod and bait."

Then why does Massachusetts, and just about every other industrialized nation in the World provide it? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Why should 30 million Americans have health insurance? Is sounds like a good idea, but what's the cost? We've thrown trillions at poverty, and it still exists. Is there any hope that having more people with insurance is going to make them healthy?

Rockefeller was for curing the cause, not the symptoms. Methinks that many government programs attack the effect, not the cause, as in "you're hungry, have a fish." As opposed to "you're hungry, here's a fishing rod and bait."

We should because it costs us more if they don't. For the 1 billionth time, people not having health insurance does not equal people not getting health care. They ARE getting care, on our dime. Preventative care saves more money than "show up at the ER when you're critical". I'm not sure why this concept can't penetrate the otherwise empty head of your garden variety conservative, so I'll term it in something most righties can understand - cars. Are you better off doing regular maintenance on your car (oil change, tune up, brakes) or waiting until it stalls on top of a hill and you go flying down into a ditch?

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Rockefeller was for curing the cause, not the symptoms. Methinks that many government programs attack the effect, not the cause, as in "you're hungry, have a fish." As opposed to "you're hungry, here's a fishing rod and bait."

I agree. I hope you're not one of those people grumbling and griping about Michelle trying to get the kids to play outside. Such simple initiatives are the low-cost way to huge potential future benefits. IF we'd all support them.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I agree. I hope you're not one of those people grumbling and griping about Michelle trying to get the kids to play outside. Such simple initiatives are the low-cost way to huge potential future benefits. IF we'd all support them.

Why waste money having some hippie broad shout it out when parents could simply do so? Or do you think that no child should have a parent and they should all be the property of the government?

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Why waste money having some hippie broad shout it out when parents could simply do so? Or do you think that no child should have a parent and they should all be the property of the government?

Stop using this in your head. It was a terrible, horrible idea in Office Space, and it sucks when you use it too.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Why waste money having some hippie broad shout it out when parents could simply do so? Or do you think that no child should have a parent and they should all be the property of the government?

What harm in hiring some hippie broad to shout it out to the millions of kids in the inner cities who are already virtually orphaned by drugs/alcoholism/etc.? What harm?

 

[jmh]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

In principal, I agree. In reality, its not working that way.

So Romney comes out claiming its a states right issue. Fine. Then later his spokesman comes out inferring that its dangerous for America. Then a PAC comes out saying its socialism. Then Romney calls Obamacare terrible.

If its states right issue...fine, then Romney should stump based on states rights...period. Problem is that state's rights won't win Romney an election.

So it becomes a shell game where Romney infers that its states rights...until he's in a position to bash Obama, then its just bad policy (even though it was similar to his 'bad policy'). Then when he's on the defense...its back to states rights.

Well, yes. In reality, the way it's been argued in the media has been a shell game. The "SOCIALISM IS EVIL!" crowd doesn't really have a leg to stand on, since what we're talking about was in practice Romney's policy initiative first, so if Obama is a socialist then Romney is a pioneer of socialism. My point, though, is that you CAN make an intellectually honest argument against the ACA, and simply saying "it's hypocritical to object to this plan now while being OK with it when Romney passed it in Massachusetts" oversimplifies the issue.

I understand this argument, BUT, one of the core concepts of state rights is that they are the laboratories for democracy. Obama liked what Massachusetts did and used it as a model for the country. Why is that wrong?

It's not wrong from a practical standpoint. (Do people in Massachusetts like how things have worked out? I confess, I don't actually know. I guess if Massachusetts residents hate it then it's wrong from a practical standpoint, but conceptually it isn't.) It might be wrong from a constitutionality standpoint. I don't think it IS for the reasons in the opinion Roberts wrote, but claiming that it was beyond the reach of federal powers was certainly a plausible argument to make.

Look at it another way - let's say that everyone agrees the drivers' licenses in Texas are the absolute best. Best driver's education program in the schools, best driver testing process, quickest lines at the DMV (there's a "tallest midget" distinction for you), toughest licenses to counterfeit, quickest licenses to run with a police computer, the whole shebang. Now what if some future president decides to create a national ID and driver licensing system based on the Texas model? Again, from a practical standpoint, makes perfect sense to go with this, but constitutionally, It seems pretty well settled that driver licensing is the province of the state governments, and any national ID scheme proposal is going to make a lot of people unhappy.

You'll change your tune when the jack-booted union goons show up on your doorstep in SWAT gear to take away your cold, dead, hands. Or something.

(I wonder how much hard-earned taxpayer money is going for jack-boots, anyway? And are the jack-boots made in China?)

If my hands are cold and dead, I don't think I'll be singing any tune at all!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Reagan imposed a national Freeway speed limit of 55mph. That was supposed to be State only as well.

If Health Care is not Federal then why are all the Bushwackers whining to keep the Federal Government out of their Medicare? See the contradiction?

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Great read on the inner workings of how the decision came down...and Roberts role:

Two unnamed sources? They're either some combination of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, or someone's spouting bullshiat. Because the only others who would have that kind of knowledge are the law clerks, the administrative support staff, and the protective details. And none of them would risk their careers to spill the beans.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Two unnamed sources? They're either some combination of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, or someone's spouting bullshiat. Because the only others who would have that kind of knowledge are the law clerks, the administrative support staff, and the protective details. And none of them would risk their careers to spill the beans.

According to the WSJ

Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, says he can’t remember anything quite like it. If a clerk leaked, he says, it would be a “career-ending move”; if a Justice did so it might poison relationships on the Court.

Kerr does point out that clerks leaked details of Bush v. Gore four years after it was decided, which, among other things, makes me think that leaking is not as career-ending as Kerr and Goldsmith make it out to be. If the stakes of the Sebelius decision were as high as rhetoric on both sides made them out to be, then leaking about how things turned out as they did could easily be viewed as a patriotic, if difficult, decision.

Incidentally, all this talk about judicial leaks reminds me that the noted legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin began his career as a leaker, of sorts: After serving as an associate counsel in the office of the Iran-Contra special prosecutor, he wrote a controversial book about the inside workings of the office, as the investigation continued. “I could understand a young lawyer wanting to keep copies of his own work, but not copying material from the general files or the personal files of others,” the special prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh, wrote in his book “Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-Up.” Toobin’s career survived, to say the least, although he did not follow a traditional legal path. In fact, Toobin’s book, “Opening Arguments: A Young Lawyer’s First Case—United States v. Oliver North,” launched his career.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Reagan imposed a national Freeway speed limit of 55mph. That was supposed to be State only as well.

If Health Care is not Federal then why are all the Bushwackers whining to keep the Federal Government out of their Medicare? See the contradiction?

That was Nixon back in 1973. I thought RR got rid of it. The Congre$$ "bribed" the States by threatening to withhold highway $$ if they did not impose the 55. The way the western states with their wide open highways got around that was hilarious. One state imposed a $5 fine to be paid to the trooper who pulled you over. Others put 55 on the signs and ignored it.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Out of curiosity, what got leaked from Bush v. Gore after the fact? I read a whole bunch of stuff about those 40 odd days for the months between that and 9/11.