Skip to comments.Black robes can't hide the truth
Posted on 04/04/2012 6:24:43 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON How dare President Barack Obama brush back the Supreme Court like that?
Has this former constitutional law instructor no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances? Nah. And why should he?
This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming the one of the most divisive in modern U.S. history.
It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes.
The Supreme Court mirrors the setup on Fox News: There are liberals who make arguments, but they are foils, in the background, trying to get in a few words before the commercials. Just as in the Senate's shameful Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, the liberals on the court focus on process and the conservatives focus on results. John Roberts Jr.'s benign beige facade is deceiving; he's a crimson partisan, simply more cloaked than the ideologically rigid and often venomous Scalia.
Now conservative justices may throw Obama's hard-won law out of those fine big windows. In 2005, Scalia was endorsing a broad interpretation of the clauses now under scrutiny from the majority. Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Samuel Alito feel it is the province and duty of the judiciary to say "what the law is, not what it should be." But the majority's political motives are as naked as a strip-search.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesunion.com ...
They don’t realize that when a socialist government is finished plundering “the rich” that it begins to progressively define “the rich” downward. Someday the less poor are going to be “the rich” when compared to the destitute.
She has it so backwards, as well.
It’s the leftists/Marxists who keep their eye on the end goal, ie, the “results”. They contort the process in order to achieve those goals. This is “fairness” to them. They define what a “fair” outcome would be, and change to rules in order to achive that outcome.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are more concerned with following the same rules and letting the results fall where they may, as long as the rules are followed. This is “fairness” to a conservative.
So its affirmative then, there was a leak from the SC to Obanana and the MSM, else-wise they would not be having conniptions just yet.
So let's say that the Supreme Court does throw out Obamacare. What will Congress do? The right thing? Don't make me laugh. They will try to patch insurance again, instead of striking at the core of the problem.
I'm glad to see that we don't have to depend on government to Do The Right Thing. From the New York Times: "...a group of nine medical specialty boards plans to recommend on Wednesday that doctors perform 45 common tests and procedures less often,... . Eight other specialty boards are preparing ... additional lists of procedures their members should perform far less often." THERE is the heart of the problem. THERE is why my own hospital stay for a heart problem blossomed to $30K out of pocket.
And why are doctors performing tests that provide diminishing returns? Part of the problem is legal exposure -- people with dead relatives who say "if you had performed this test, my Aunt Mae would be alive today." Part of the problem is a lack of incentive to avoid unnecessary tests: "Don't worry, your insurance will pick it up." (No, they won't, not anymore.) And a good part of the problem is the attitude of the patient or patients' family: "We have to do everything we can."
So, it's a three-pronged problem: reform of the medical tort system, education of the doctors about the fiscal side of their decisions, and education of the patients or guardians about effective testing. Notice the word "insurance" didn't enter into this summation -- and the reason is that insurance should be in the background.
I've been against single-payer for some time, because I think that the free market should be given a chance to operate. But that hasn't happened because the lawyers are now dictating medical treatment by the malpractice lawsuits they file. The medical societies, by agreeing to standards of practice, can reign in the practice of medicine in the courtroom. So when we unshackle medicine from law, we might get somewhere.
Or not. Politics has a huge amount of inertia build into it...
Barf Alert? Modo is the liberal word that when translated is Barf Alert.
-—What really, Really, REALLY gets me is that both sides forget the real problem: medical care costs are through the roof. So the whole insurance thing is not the reaason-—
Third party payment is the main reason for skyrocketing medical costs.
Notice that Lasik eye surgery, which is not covered by insurance, has decreased in cost continuously.
It’s amazing the vitriol that liberals are already unloading on SCOTUS in advance of a decision in this case. It’s still 50/50 that they’ll toss out any part of Obamacare. Faith in Anthony Kennedy to do the right thing is, I fear, not based on his history on the court.
What will they say if the court upholds Obamacare?
The Congress has the option of removing federal judges. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior. If a federal judge refuses to rule in accord with the Constitution the Congress may remove him, and he can be replaced with one that will.
Is Maureen Dowd still around? I thought she was dead.
Yeah, I was wondering about that juxtaposition. Figured it was related to the last sentence of the excerpt.
I keep oscillating between whether the Obama is extremely subtle & clever about what he is doing, or completely inept. At the moment, given the above reasoning, I'm favoring the latter: he's akin to a toddler declaring "I can do it!" with nary a clue what "it" entails.
I agree with you but I think we have to be mindful of where in the process we utter the last word.
If we are saying that the Supreme Court cannot determine whether a piece of legislation is constitutional after the people's representatives have spoken, that is a denial of the doctrine of judicial review which, although not explicit in the Constitution, has been the accepted modus operandi in The United States since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, with some very important exceptions.
Pres. Andrew Jackson simply ignored the Supreme Court's ruling prohibiting the removal of Indians and their banishment along the trail of tears famously (or infamously) saying "The Supreme Court has made its order now let it enforce it."
It might be said that Abraham Lincoln and the northern tier of states decided to overturn the Dred Scott decision by waging a Civil War. In any event, that war was the occasion for outlawing slavery by executive decree.
Franklin Roosevelt, of course, attempted to undo or reshape court rulings by packing the court, an undertaking which failed as a tactic but succeeded as a strategy by causing "a switch in time to save nine."
Newt Gingrich has recently raised serious arguments asserting the power of the legislative branch to control the rulings of the federal courts simply by abolishing the courts and it is established that the legislative branch has subject matter power over the courts by controlling their jurisdiction. Gingrich cites Pres. Jefferson as one who controlled the power of the federal courts by abolishing them.
As I said, I support judicial review of legislative action although it is not explicit in the Constitution. I have a little bit more trouble supporting judicial review of referenda such as now having occurred more than once in California. I think my objection to the judicial review in California arises from my conviction that the federal judges are misapplying constitutional principles in striking the referenda rather than from a belief that the courts have no business determining the constitutionality of referenda. A warning that we are all susceptible to finding that which is desirable constitutional and that which is undesirable unconstitutional.
Of course, the people have the ultimate say when they amend the Constitution. There is no judicial review in that case.
The entire justification for declaring the people's representatives' laws unconstitutional is to deny the people the right of the majority to have their say. But that does not mean that the court has necessarily the last say.
However, that was not the question at hand. Congress cannot overturn a supreme court ruling, and removing one or more justices via impeachment AFTER a particular ruling will not change that fact.
By the way, how many United States supreme court justices have been impeached and removed from the court in our nations history?
Well said, sir.
Of course, congress can abolish all federal courts except the supreme court, right?
Helpful hint: right-click on the picture, then go to 'properties'.
1 impeachment, no removals. Samuel Chase March 1805.
Like all libs she wants it both ways. When they can't get what they want through legislation, either at the state or federal level, they look to the judiciary to legislate from the bench for them.
But if the judiciary doesn't agree with their legislation, that's judicial activism, reactionary, and a return to segregated lunch counters and back-alley abortions. I get so tired of their rantings.
I’d like to smack MoDo upside the head with all 2700 pages of Obamacare!
Impeachment in our Constitutional system is not designed to remove those whose decisions or votes or policies are unpopular with a majority of Congress.