Disclaimer: My current understanding is that the mandate in the Affordable Care Act should pass constitutional muster based on what the court has been deciding since the Wickard v. Filburn case. But here’s yet another AP Story that will make you want to gouge your eyeballs out with piping hot meat thermometers …
The headline: “4 GOP Appointed Justices Control Health Law’s Fate.” Can anyone come up with a more ridiculous and misleading headline? Especially after you see what they write down below. So you mean to tell us that the other justices do not control the fate of the health law? And look at the language used and read the rest of the article – it’s written as if “fate” means a particular outcome – lamenting the possibility that 4 justices might rule in such a way as to strike down the mandate. Again, I think the mandate is among the small things to be worrying about. But this presentation is ridiculous.
Here’s the text, with some brief comments:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Here’s a thought that can’t comfort President Barack Obama: The fate of his health care overhaul rests with four Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices.
His most sweeping domestic achievement could be struck down if they stand together with Justice Clarence Thomas, another GOP appointee who is the likeliest vote against.
But the good news for Obama is that he probably needs only one of the four to side with him to win approval of the law’s crucial centerpiece, the requirement that almost everyone in this country has insurance or pays a penalty.
So in other words, it’s a foregone conclusion that the Democratically selected justices will vote as a bloc to support the mandate. Fine. But then is there any real jurisprudence here? In fact, this point seems to undermine the point of the article. It seems to me rather impressive that the 4 GOP (absent Thomas I suppose) appointees are thinking about the case and the facts and precedent and have yet to make up their mind – in other words you cannot easily figure out how ALL of them are going to vote merely on the basis of who appointed them to the court. Isn’t this a good thing? And what does it say when an “news” reporter laments this fact? Here’s more:
Lawyers with opposing views of the issue uniformly agree that the four Democratic-appointed justices, including Obama’s two picks, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, will have no trouble concluding that Congress did not overstep its authority in adopting the insurance requirement that is aimed at sharply reducing the now 50 million people without insurance.
On the other side, Thomas has made clear in several cases that he does not take an expansive view of Congress’ powers.
Both the Obama administration and the health care law’s challengers believe they can attract the other four Republicans to their side. The group includes Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the two appointees of President George W. Bush who have swung the court to the right in a number of areas; conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia; and the less doctrinaire Anthony Kennedy.
This is tiring it really is. Here’s the winning quote (from a law scholar):
Thus, the real issue is whether the Republican-appointed justices will overcome ideology and vote to uphold the law.
Well, Hayek would have at least rephrased it by changing the last word to “legislation.” We’ve long since left the world of law.
We have to get over the feeling that newspapers can or do express some kind of neutral, accurate account of events. Such has never been the case. Historically, the “news media” have been extensions of political organizations. The record of this is more obvious in places like Germany, where one of Bismarck’s first objectives was the establishment of newspapers that advanced his ideas and the National Socialists made propaganda the focus of their activity. There are plenty of examples in the US as well, for instance Wilson’s appointment of sycophant publisher of the Raleigh News and Observer Josephus Daniels as Secretary of the Navy.
A great commentary on this subject is made by Michael Crichton in this talk:
http://www.wbsi.org/ilfdigest/commentaries_mar_04.htm
I miss Michael Crichton. He was great at picking a topic for a novel that would challenge conventional wisdom and the superficial thinking that goes with it.
As for punditry, I tune in Larry Kudlow whenever I can because he used to be the best at forecasting the economy and in particular what might happen with inflation and interest rates. Currently he is a bull as far as the stock market goes (I think the stock market is one of those things that is so complex and inherently unknowable that nobody really knows whether it will go up or down). But Kudlow is a supply-sider, and one of his frequent panelists is Art Laffer, so I still want to know what he has to say.
Other pundits, however, have only a superficial knowledge of a lot of different things — like lawyers but instead of their knowledge being an inch thick and a mile wide, it’s only a couple of millimeters thick and 9 by 12 at the widest. They know only Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama.
This design is spectacular! You certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Excellent job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!
In this great design of things you actually secure a B+ with regard to hard work. Where you actually confused everybody ended up being on your specifics. You know, people say, the devil is in the details… And it couldn’t be much more correct right here. Having said that, permit me inform you precisely what did work. Your authoring is actually very powerful and that is most likely the reason why I am making the effort to comment. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. Next, whilst I can certainly see a jumps in reason you come up with, I am not necessarily confident of just how you appear to unite the ideas that make the final result. For the moment I shall yield to your point however trust in the near future you link your dots much better.
The core of your writing while sounding agreeable originally, did not settle perfectly with me after some time. Someplace throughout the paragraphs you actually managed to make me a believer unfortunately just for a very short while. I still have a problem with your jumps in logic and you would do well to fill in all those gaps. In the event you actually can accomplish that, I would definitely end up being impressed.
Hmm is anyone else having problems with the pictures on this blog loading? I’m trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog. Any responses would be greatly appreciated.
Does your blog have a contact page? I’m having a tough time locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an e-mail. I’ve got some creative ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great website and I look forward to seeing it expand over time.
Greetings from Ohio! I’m bored at work so I decided to check out your website on my iphone during lunch break. I really like the info you provide here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m shocked at how fast your blog loaded on my mobile .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, good site!
Does your site have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to send you an email. I’ve got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it grow over time.
Hello just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your content seem to be running off the screen in Internet explorer. I’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know. The layout look great though! Hope you get the problem solved soon. Many thanks