Thursday, June 28, 2012


Thought of the Day

It is not [the Supreme Court's] job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Chief Justice John Roberts


I agree with Roberts's statement there, but nor is it the job of SCOTUS to essentially re-write legislation to achieve some desired end. That's just wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Roberts should have joined the 4 and thrown the whole damned thing back to Congress for a do-over, instead of using the Ct to mold it like he wanted it.
I'll be reading the op over the wk-end -- can't wait to read Ginsberg's parts -- apparently, she got off multiple slams at Roberts.
I read the Roberts op and the dissent, but not the Ginsberg part (couldn't face it). Gotta say that Roberts is less than convincing re: tax v. penalty. I also was surprised by the emotion (or what I read as emotional) tone of the conclusion to the joint dissent. To me, it sounded like an impassioned plea to the other 1/2 of the Ct. to think really, really hard about what it was doing & the change it would bring in the relationship of the individual to his government.
RE: effects of the [rewritten] law. Here's an interesting speculation by Blahous:
...was listening to NPR this a.m., and had to chuckle to myself every time they referred to how hard it would be for a state to opt out of the extended Medicaid -- that it would be hard to turn down those Federal funds that would pay 100& then 90% of the cost. Just WHERE does NPR think those Fed funds are coming from? The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?
States have been fooled before by those now-you're-funded-now-you're-not mandates. Shame on them if they're fooled again.
Also, the various parts of the health care/insurance industry are already lobbying for waiver/exemption or outright change for their revenue-raising part of the law (tax on ins. premiums; tax on medical devices; etc.) What are the odds that the Capitol critters can resist those pleas for relief? Which will drive the law even further out of balance.
We're doomed if this law survives.
Sorry for the length; I'm really interested in your comments on the decision.
He does have a duty to find a way to reasonably uphold a statute's constitutionality. The question is did he do it reasonably? Let's make lemonade out of the lemins of the majority opinion and elect senators and a President who will wipe this abominable law away and start over from sound fiscal policy.
Oh gosh darn it, you sound so reasonable you put me to shame. (Well, not quite shame... I suppose.) I'm still suckin' on lemons....
I wish Roberts had just kicked it back to congress with a note that said, "Nice try. Fail. Let's see what you can do with it now that you've had some practice."
You remember the Denver busing case? Judge Matsch kicked the first intergration plan proposal back to the school district saying that he wasn't going to tell them how to frame their plan, but that the first try didn't work for him & they should give it some more thought.
I just wish more people could understand the hit to the fisc that this law will deliver.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?