Why I'm not as excited about Roberts "switch" on Healthcare Reform vote...

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Don't get me wrong. I think that the healthcare reform decision was mostly correct and is great news for the millions of Americans who don't have insurance and the millions more who may in the future not have insurance, I just think many people are being too myopic in their view of this development. In short, I think that John Roberts may be crazy like a fox.

Obviously the conservative movement, led off the cliff as always by the tea party, have predictably responded to Roberts blasphemy with violent rage. I suppose they could be in on the gag, though more likely they just didn't get the memo and their limited intellect views Roberts as nothing but a betrayer who must be destroyed.

Below I will outline my reasons for thinking Roberts "crazy like a fox", and my fears about the implications/results of this vote. Feel free to disagree with me but do me the favor of actually listing your disagreements and don't simply post "you're wrong".

1) Obviously, Roberts is the Captain of the most partisan court in modern memory. This is the Court that gave us Citizens United and Citizens United 2 Montana Boogaloo. This is the Court that upheld the most heinous provision of the Arizona Immigration law (show me your papers). Roberts didn't just wake up one day and start caring about poor, uninsured people. He certainly didn't learn to love taxes. This makes me think there's more behind his vote than meets the eye.

2) Many people have said, and I for the most part agree, that Roberts was concerned with the reputation of the Court. However, what does that really mean? If he was really concerned with the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public, there are many other decisions that he could have targeted (Citizens United, or at least the do-over of Citizens United in Montana, for example).

It worries me that he is going to use this one "liberal" decision to excuse dozens of partisan, conservative decisions that will change the course of government for the worse in our country. This one liberal decision could doom such important cases as Prop 8, the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action not to mention future attempts to help the poor and tackle global warming. This one decision, sweet as it is, could haunt liberals in this country for years to come (especially if Romney wins *shudder* and creates a 6-3 conservative super majority on the Court).

3) Pay close attention to exactly how he "upheld" Obamacare. He didn't completely buy the Obama Administration word on the case and changed the justification from one involving the Commerce Clause to one deeming the Individual Mandate a "tax". This could be a very important distinction. Most obvious is the fact that this hands Roberts' masters in the GOP an easy attack against Obama (OMG, he's raising your taxes). This could very well be one of the reasons behind an eventual Romney victory (very hard to type that).

Less obvious but equally troubling, this distinction diminishes the Government's powers under the Commerce Clause and could quite possibly doom future efforts by Progressive Administrations to help the poor and address future crises.

As I said, feel free to disagree with me, try to talk me down if you wish, but don't resort to insults or simply say "you're wrong", I want to know why I'm wrong.

Comments

(frozen) (no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I want to know why I'm wrong.

Because you're paranoid and delusional.

example 1: hands Roberts' masters in the GOP

That's conspiracy theory thinking.

example 2: Obviously, Roberts is the Captain of the most partisan court in modern memory.

Being the Chief Justice doesn't make him captain (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_role_of_the_Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States) of anything. As for being the most partisan, you would need to support this assertion.

this distinction diminishes the Government's powers under the Commerce Clause

No, it fails to grant additional powers to the government using that flimsy excuse.

quite possibly doom future efforts by Progressive Administrations

Hopefully there won't be any of those.

(frozen) (no subject)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

you're paranoid and delusional.

Last warning (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1484547.html?thread=119399939#t119399939).

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

We already have that, general welfare etc, been interpreted this way since the 1930s.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because that goes against the reason this nation was founded. In theory, we're not interested in an activist government to that point.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, it's always best to operate within the existing framework of the Constitution whenever possible instead of amending it for every little thing. Up til now, this was not a problem because you didn't have an activist court shooting down everything.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't think this dooms any efforts. I mean Congress can still pass programs funded by taxes, like it always has. Social programs are just things funded by taxes.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

For now, until of course they can't. This current court has never been overly reliant on precedent or anything like that. Nothing's stopping them from determining that programs can't be funded by taxes if that's what they decide to do. The problem with limiting the application of the Commerce Clause is that a lot of the progressive legislative victories have come in whole or in part because of the Commerce Clause. Without that Clause, companies could discriminate against people based on race.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I'd like to see if those who complaiend about 'hag' the other day would stay silent on this one.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

So the conservative movement have a limited intellect, right? And how do you expect to proceed in a serious way any further beyond this statement?

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Everyone has a limited intellect. Conservatives definitely have an enframing logic as do liberals. What's the problem?

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Any way you can just add a "belligerent" tag, or something similar, to posts like these? It wouldn't stop this kind of thing by the determined, but it might make those who are inclined to think a first time, as the OP typically does, to think twice before proceeding.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Oh I don't know. That seems to be their party platform:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/10551/texas-republicans-2012-platform-opposes-critical-thinking-and-supports-corporal-punishment

It might be a compliment.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,” - Rand Paul

Don't be like this guy. The internet is full of Sudden Constitutional Experts in the wake of Thursday's ruling. It also doesn't help to call unhappy Tea Party members "limited intellects". Be specific with criticisms. Like my eyeroll at Rand Paul who just tried to slip an amendment defining Fetal Personhood into a flood insurance bill.

Trivia fact I just learned: The appointment of Justice John Roberts was opposed by then-senator Obama.

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

Some people take their beliefs seriously and act on them even though other people think they're wrong.

Some of them are even elected Republicans.

Don't get me wrong, there's almost always more than one way to be right and even right decisions often have consequences you wish they hadn't, but true believers are the worst on either side. Mostly because--when the world and the system and the opposition put the brakes on them--they get mean.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The irony is that the Supreme Court deciding things on transparently unconstitutional and partisan bases is nothing new. Marbury v. Madison is the greatest scam in US constitutional history.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Don't be like this guy.

I certainly wasn't intending to be like that guy. I don't think I was being like that guy. I wasn't making any pronouncements, simply pointing out concerns I have and asking if anyone had any alternate theories for those things.

The internet is full of Sudden Constitutional Experts in the wake of Thursday's ruling.

I never claimed to be a Constitutional Expert.

Trivia fact I just learned: The appointment of Justice John Roberts was opposed by then-senator Obama.

And I'm sure most of the Democratic caucus did the same. It was clear he was going to be rather partisan when he was nominated.

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

Don't get me wrong. I think that the healthcare reform decision was mostly correct and is great news for the millions of Americans who don't have insurance and the millions more who may in the future not have insurance, I just think many people are being too myopic in their view of this development. In short, I think that John Roberts may be crazy like a fox.

Basically, you're talking about a person whose job is to understand more thoroughly the legal system the congress (and others) create and make rational, defendable determinations off that information. I should think he would be reasonably intelligent. The question is simply how much political motivation was in both his decision and his presentation of it. The next question is whether or not the reason you perceive it as such a wily response is because it was institutionally correct but bad for your political/philosophical bent (as you imply below) or whether it was incorrect overall and simply politically manipulative.

Obviously the conservative movement, led off the cliff as always by the tea party, have predictably responded to Roberts blasphemy with violent rage. I suppose they could be in on the gag, though more likely they just didn't get the memo and their limited intellect views Roberts as nothing but a betrayer who must be destroyed.

Most people who follow politics have pretty limited intellects on both sides. Both sides tend to have stereotypical blind spots when it comes to both understanding the other side as well as understanding the system, mostly by discounting what the other side bases their values on. Which is one reason why many political discussions easily turn into childish name calling because you can't rationally argue with someone you don't share at least a basic set of logical starting points on. While you at least acknowledge someone on the "other side" might be intelligent (Roberts), the assumption everyone else is--because they don't share your value system--is probably a major reason you're left asking parts 2 and 3 as well as why you're trying to see things in terms of a conspiracy perspective because--at least then--you can fill in motives...

1) Obviously, Roberts is the Captain of the most partisan court in modern memory. This is the Court that gave us Citizens United and Citizens United 2 Montana Boogaloo. This is the Court that upheld the most heinous provision of the Arizona Immigration law (show me your papers). Roberts didn't just wake up one day and start caring about poor, uninsured people. He certainly didn't learn to love taxes. This makes me think there's more behind his vote than meets the eye.

His job wasn't to support cases or laws he liked or disliked, it was to determine whether or not the laws or cases were correct within the letter of the law. Whether or not he cares about poor and/or uninsured people or even taxes isn't at issue (and would probably be a decent reason to impeach him over if he made a decision based mainly on what he liked). The system of laws we have allows the Federal government to establish taxes and the penalties included in Obamacare are set up that way. In this case, it just looks like he called a shovel a shovel...

[caerbannogbunny.livejournal.com]

2) Many people have said, and I for the most part agree, that Roberts was concerned with the reputation of the Court. However, what does that really mean? If he was really concerned with the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public, there are many other decisions that he could have targeted (Citizens United, or at least the do-over of Citizens United in Montana, for example).

People are pretty fed up with both other branches of the Federal government right now because they're tired of the effects of the culture wars and social crusaders from both sides not accomplishing what the Federal government was chartered to do: National defense, interstate and international commerce, etc. Additionally, their own side keeps getting elected on a "I'll go show them (Fill in rude term for opposition here) and change everything to the way (Fill in name of voter) think it should be" then miserably failing, even if they succeed in passing something when the opposition responds and/or there are unintended consequences.

I think what Roberts was really concerned about was trying to at least give the impression that the Supreme Court is willing to make hard decisions based on the rules and the Constitution, even if it is going to piss off "their" sides. You know? Try to demonstrate we have at least one working branch at the Federal level.

3) Pay close attention to exactly how he "upheld" Obamacare. He didn't completely buy the Obama Administration word on the case and changed the justification from one involving the Commerce Clause to one deeming the Individual Mandate a "tax". This could be a very important distinction. Most obvious is the fact that this hands Roberts' masters in the GOP an easy attack against Obama (OMG, he's raising your taxes). This could very well be one of the reasons behind an eventual Romney victory (very hard to type that).

Less obvious but equally troubling, this distinction diminishes the Government's powers under the Commerce Clause and could quite possibly doom future efforts by Progressive Administrations to help the poor and address future crises.

The problem with progressive administrations, socialist governments, communist governments, and just about every government type that runs on "ideals" more so than practicality is that they increase consequences--for example, higher taxes--on the cooperative people without increasing incentives to comply. The more you do that, the more broken the system is and the more you end turning cooperative people into antagonists. That's half the problem. The other half is the conservative assumption that--at some time in the recent past--the system worked better. You put those together--increased consequences without incentive and the belief something worked better before and someone wants to change it--and that's why you get backlash against progressive governments.

So, the creation of economic measures or modification of them resulting in more costs and no incentives to cooperate kills cooperation with progressives more so than the distinction between the commerce clause being the rationale behind the increased consequences or the ability to tax. The results might be the same though: a broken enough system to get people to try something like a constitutional amendment to limit one or the other (and the chaos THAT might cause).

Should be interesting to watch though. Pity to have to live through this chaos though.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Dude, this post has already been written in a much more eloquent and rational form.

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1491057.html

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

This is the Court that upheld the most heinous provision of the Arizona Immigration law (show me your papers).

All the justices agreed with that part. Not very good evidence for "the most partisan court in modern memory".

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I'm not of the opinion that my side can't screw up from time to time.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Honestly, who gives a damn? The GOP's running the guy who came up with the Mk. I variant of Obamacare while treating the Mk. II version as Wilbur Whateley invoking Yog-Sothoth to end the world. Their whole objection to this is at the very least extremely dirty politics, at the worst the GOP's officially gone off into insanity as a collective whole, the moreso when we consider that the rank and file and state parties are more insane than the national party leadership. When the GOP treats its own ideas as unconstitutional treason that leads to calls for revolution and comparing this ruling to mandating slavery for everyone, the only assumption is either we're back to "Ma Ma Where's my Pa" times or the GOP is a political movement that has no role in a civilized society albeit a greatly dangerous role for a barbarian one.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

But just for the record:
Obviously the conservative movement, led off the cliff as always by the tea party, have predictably responded to Roberts blasphemy with violent rage. I suppose they could be in on the gag, though more likely they just didn't get the memo and their limited intellect views Roberts as nothing but a betrayer who must be destroyed.

This is not the kind of thing that progressives should be doing when they bitch about using cartoon characters and mythological monsters as insults. As an FYI, it's precisely the kind of hypocrisy that ensures that you will get people to talk about that one phrase instead of the actual post itself.

And as far as the comment above this one and that point, the point about insanity relates to the treatment of Obamacare as treason when it was an idea first proposed in Congress by a Republican and the first US attempt at UHC was done by none other than their prospective nominee for POTUS. If Obama's a traitor, so were all these Republicans. If their ideas aren't treason and are justifiable, neither are Obama's.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't call it limited intellect.

I might call it limited world-view.

I don't think that the characterization rises to the same sort of problem as calling out a woman politician because you think she's ugly, but it's not very nice.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I think I've already established I'm not always "very nice". I do try though. I certainly didn't do myself any favors since I never really got an answer to my question among all the people clutching their pearls about that one sentence.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I want to know why I'm wrong.

hands Roberts' masters in the GOP is conspiracy theory thinking.

Obviously, Roberts is the Captain of the most partisan court in modern memory.

Being the Chief Justice doesn't make him captain of anything. As for being the most partisan, you would need to support this assertion.

this distinction diminishes the Government's powers under the Commerce Clause

No, it fails to grant additional powers to the government using that flimsy excuse.

quite possibly doom future efforts by Progressive Administrations

Hopefully there won't be any of those.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'd like to remind people that the court's job isn't to strike down objectively bad laws, it's to strike down unconstitutional ones. No matter how much you think Obamacare hurts business or whatever it's not a rational argument for its unconstitutionality. For those who wanted the whole thing overturned and not just the individual mandate, I can't understand what you could possibly oppose on constitutional grounds. Something in the Constitution that says you can't tell insurers not to deny people for pre-existing conditions? Something in there saying you can't tell them to not have lifetime maximums?

While the mandate doesn't fall under the commerce clause, the rest of the regulations DO!! This is the point that seems to be ignored.