Skip to main content

View Diary: The ACA ruling: What the Court will decide (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But aren't they really (33+ / 0-)

    ... just that partisan?  If Citizens United didn't seem a problem for them, why should this?  At this point in time, I worry about anything going before that court.

    In fact, if there's a single argument that trumps all others about why it's important to support Obama for November it's that it will make a monstrous difference if Ginsburg gets replaced by another Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas - one who's 50 or younger.  Because that is what we'll get; and what we'll be stuck with for many decades to come.  (Clarence Thomas being the most lasting legacy of Bush I, who might be another 20 years on the court, being only in his mid-60s now.  And having replaced Thurgood Marshall only makes that worse.)

    Meanwhile, my household has a member on one of those pre-existing condition plans.  So this result has immediate relevance to our household.

    Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden 8/10/09)

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 06:21:30 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hi LOE, I hope and believe (9+ / 0-)

      that if God forbid Obama is not re-elected, Ginsburg will make every effort to tough out another four years, if her health allows.

    •  Off Topic, But (7+ / 0-)

      I don't see Clarence being the Numero Uno lasting legacy of Bush I.

      Certain members of the Senate fought tooth and nail for CT (in spite of the fact he had the lowest ABA rating ever rgarding SCOTUS potentials).

      The POTUS can recommend Bozo the Clown for a court position if he wants to-- it's up to congress to approve/not approve. they have the power.

      So this is another example of Congress FAIL.

      Poppy Bush's legacy is more about his infamous Christmas surprise-- where he at the last minute (to protect his own ass) pardoned several people going down in flames due to the Iran-Contra scandal.

      Also, he's a rare recent example of an incumbent POTUS getting booted from office.

      "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

      by Superpole on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 07:12:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush I WH fought tooth and nail to confirm Thomas (9+ / 0-)

        Do you really think that  Simpson, Specter, and Hatch engaged in a coordinated smear campaign against Prof. Hill totally on their own accord?*   Specter, in particular, was worried about a primary challenge on his right flank b/c he voted against Bork's nomination, and he gladly toed the party line.

        According to the book Strange Justice, Bush personally witnessed a Thomas pre-confirmation hearing briefing session.  The book further notes that the 2 FBI agents in OK who initially interviewed Prof. Hill executed affidavits suggesting that she embellished her testimony before Judiciary--these affidavits were promptly released to the media.

        Quayle was sent to preside over the Senate on the day of the vote in case a tiebreaker was needed (final tally was 52-48).  Given the high confirmation % of SCOTUS nominees in the 20th century,  Bush I nominated CT w/ every expectation that he would be confirmed.  In fact, until Prof. Hill's story emerged near the end of the confirmation process, CT's confirmation was a sure thing.

        I agree that the Senate Dems totally blew this confirmation process.  In particular, Judiciary Chairman Biden, who distinguished himself in the Bork confirmation process, did not distinguish himself here.  Ted K, 6 mos after the Au Bar controversy in Palm Beach,  was compelled to stay silent during these hearings.   It took a group of women MOC's to shame the Judiciary Dems into finally taking Hill's accusations seriously.   At the end of this sordid process, 10 Senate Dems voted aye.

        It took the efforts of many to put a marginally qualified right-wing hack w/ numerous credibility issues on the Supremes for 21 years now (and probably at least another 10 years).  While the Dems erred badly, this disgrace started w/ the Bush I WH.  That gift that keeps on giving was the worst thing Poppy did as POTUS.

        As to the subject of the diary, I think that there's a 99.9% chance that the mandate will be thrown out 5-4.  I'm not that optimistic about the rest of the bill, largely b/c it contains no severability clause and b/c the WH consciously chose to stake its chips on affirming the mandate.

        *It's fascinating to note that the GOP focus during the supplemental hearings on Hill's accusations was on tearing down her rather than building up CT.  Their politics of personal destruction has a long and a proud history.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 07:46:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Simpson, Specter, and Hatch (0+ / 0-)

          these are senators, correct?

          Thank you for reinforcing my point: they decide who gets appointed to the SCOTUS. not the POTUS, thus this is not a huge legacy of poppy bush.

          I'm not going to waste my time looking it up; I already know enough "democratic" congresspeople stupidly supported Clarence.

          I realize that's a problem most here want to ignore.

          "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

          by Superpole on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 08:26:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're turning a both/and question into either/or (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ozsea1, jayden, Dump Terry McAuliffe

            question.  As I explained in detail above, there's ample blame to pass around in this fiasco.  For some reason, you want to downplay the role of the guy who actually nominated CT.

            It is naive in the extreme to think that Simpson, Specter, and Hatch acted solely on their own accord.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 09:15:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, they are, and I'm glad you said this, (6+ / 0-)

      Citizens has been compared to Dread Scott. That's how bad this court is.

      "But Brandine, you're supposed to be in Iraq stopping 911!"

      by leftyguitarist on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 07:22:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, the Court IS partisan ... and members (4+ / 0-)

      ... do each for issues in cases, sometimes issues or relief not even argued by the parties or re-argued at the Court's request to treat the issue the conservatives want to decide.

      The Second Amendment gun case from DC was an example. So was Citizens United. ACA wasn't such a case, but it probably will be one the Court will extend its "reach." These guys are neo-John Marshalls, waiting, waiting.

      I think the SCOTUS conservatives will try very hard to confabulate a ruling to try to pollute Congress's future attempts to craft reasonable health care/insurance reform. Their problem will be that - as we so well know - this is an activist Court, which not only reaches for cases and will enjoy invalidating "New Deal" social legislation ... but it will not want to disempower Congress from enacting conservative legislation. Some of that will require Congressional powers, some of which are almost certainly lodged somewhere in the 14th Amendment.

      So the Court's path through ACA will be tricky.

      Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

      by TRPChicago on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 07:24:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  SCOTUS Is _Economically_ Partisan More (0+ / 0-)

        than politically partisan.

        Most cases involving money or corporations-- the SCOTUS is pro corporate. the CU ruling is about the SCOTUS equating wealth/use of wealth as a "free speech" issue when it's more about leverage to benefit the wealthy class. Again, there's a long history of this, read Zinn's book. There's nothing new here.

        it just so happens many in the wealthy class are GOP'ers. if they were liberals, I've a feeling we'd not have much to talk about.

        "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 08:21:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Not much to talk about" - Gun violence? Women's (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ozsea1, indie17

          ... right to sue employers for previously undiscoverable discrimination? Capital punishment?

          Quite an array of health and social services issues will be coming before the Supreme Court. While the results of such cases might be rationalized on economic grounds, many conservative biases run on tracks other than wealth.

          As for the electorate, very few - relatively - are wealthy. And while most of those may be Republicans (exit polling typically doesn't cut income levels that fine), it's the con job that monied interests have done on the non-wealthy electorate that is producing some of the screwiest politics in several generations. Under the guise of economic issues (as in "Taxed Enough Already"), the wealthy cons have enlivened and emboldened the hotbed of US conservatism, when many in that cadre are decidedly not voting their pocketbooks at all and, in fact, are voting against their financial interests.

          From an election standpoint, that's the challenge we have: to unhook some of the voters - in 2012, it won't take that many! - who've been captured by the strategy of the wealthiest among us.

          Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

          by TRPChicago on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 09:34:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Meant Regarding the SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

            "As for the electorate, very few - relatively - are wealthy."

            Got it. So why is nearly half of the senate made up of Millionaires? that's representative?

            "when many in that cadre are decidedly not voting their pocketbooks at all and, in fact, are voting against their financial interests".

            This one is wearing thin.

            These people are broke, UNemployed. they don't have "financial interests".

            Nobody here has demonstrated how to get these folks to the polls in November

            "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

            by Superpole on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 12:45:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site