I was not going to mention the health care decision….I was going to let the pundits rattle their brains for the proper spin……but I will have to admit that I did not see the taxation thing coming with the decision…..Judge Roberts has done what he intended….he gave the GOP its talking point for the next week or so…..that being that the was constitutional and that the penalty for not having insurance would result in a penalty would be a form of taxation……
When I heard the ruling I thought it was a win for the prez and that the GOP was having sour grapes and would spin it…..they did as I thought they would ….but the more surrogates roll out and the more the spin turned not from health care but to the taxation thing….I got to thinking….
And so did the Congress……and now they will not admit defeat and work on jobs but rather they will vote and vote on what is a dead subject, at least for now….
But as long as they plan on tapping this decision, the taxation part, I have a counter to their spin…..the Repubs are now saying that the penalty for not having insurance is a form of taxation, right? If you are crazy enough to buy into this argument….what about the penalty for an overdrawn check…..a tax? Or the penalty for parking improperly….another tax? The penalty for speeding, jay walking, etc….are all these taxes?
These are seemingly preposterous questions are no more so than to label the insurance penalty as a tax….I may not agree with everything, or in reality not much….but this line of attack is nothing more than idiotic……. just the lame attempts of the losers in the Obamacare case trying to spin this for the benefit of a candidate that has no position other than he wants to repeal the law…….the same law that he passed and approved for the state he was governor several years before.
I have often called the time from primary wins to conventions as the doldrums of politics….that time when the most moronic stuff is said to stay in the news……yes, I know….it is pathetic….but that is American politics.
Today is the big day! We all, well us political geeks, are waiting for the decision from SCOTUS on Obamacare. No matter which way it goes there will be a wealth of surrogates sprinting to the closest mic to spout the party talking points (thank God for the House gym that keeps all these toads in shape for sprints like this one)…….
While you sit on the edge of your chair waiting nervously for the big announcement let me give you something to think about…….America is in the midst of radical change…..wait! What do I mean?
James Fallows of the Atlantic has summed it up very well, indeed…..
This is distilled from a longer item earlier today, at the suggestion of my colleagues. It’s a simple game you can try at home. Pick a country and describe a sequence in which:
- First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
- Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
- Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
- Meanwhile their party’s representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation — and appointments, especially to the courts.
- And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party’s majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it — even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.
How would you describe a democracy where power was being shifted that way?
SCOTUS was originally created to be the referee between the Executive and Legislative branches….and since those days it has morphed into something radical and out of control……they have long since moved from neutral referee into a party arm…..and no matter which way the vote goes…they are helping create an America that no one respect…….
We all know, that is if we ever took a civics class that there are three branches of the government that our Founders intended, Executive, Legislative and Judicial…..and the later has to be the “referee” that kept the peace and be the final word on debates among the first two…..is that about the way you learned it?
We have all heard the song about “activist judges” whenever there is a ruling that some do not agree with…….but that aside should judges be impartial? Of course they should!
By now we have been informed that SCOTUS will hear the case of repealing health care or as sometime during the 2012 election cycle…interesting no? But wait! There is more…….
The justices agreed to hear the suit; indeed, a landmark 5 1/2-hour argument is expected in March, and the outcome is likely to further roil the 2012 presidential race, which will be in full swing by the time the court’s decision is released.
The lawyer who will stand before the court and argue that the law should be thrown out is likely to be Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration.
Clement’s law firm, Bancroft PLLC, was one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles. Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business.
Another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. The dinner was held at a Washington hotel hours after the court’s conference over the case. In attendance was, among others, Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s top Republican and an avowed opponent of the healthcare law.
The featured guests at the dinner? Scalia and Thomas.
Is there a Code of Conduct of judges? Canon 4C, which states, “A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event.“
Does anyone else see a problem in the making here?
If Chief Justice Roberts does NOT make these people recuse themselves then there should be a massive recall on the justices in question….including the Chief Justice!
Remember that now famous line uttered by Willard? The media was all over this statement and bloggers jump it too….but you realize that this is NOT a new vision? What can I say…..this idea is over 110 years old and it came from the mouth of a Supreme Court Justice……sound familiar?
Read it and weep……..the HufPo writers have done an excellent job as far as the history lesson goes…..http://t.co/OQMO7Z2L
The idea of corporate personhood was once viewed as nonsense. A corporation was formed to limit the financial liability of its owners in pursuing their business: If the corporation went broke, debtors couldn’t come after its owners. That such a company might also have all the rights of citizens was a concept on the fringes. Yet by force of judicial will, Field pulled it right into the mainstream.
Field was as much concerned with protecting business investments as he was with working the Lord’s will. He was heavily invested in railroads and other industries that came before the Court, so much so that the chief justice at the time pressed him not to weigh in on certain cases. “There was no doubt of your intimate personal relations with the managers of the Central Pacific, and it would tend to discredit the opinion if it came from someone known as the personal friend of the parties representing these railroad interests,” the chief justice warned Field,
A fascinating article with lots of facts and history……please read it again…..http://t.co/OQMO7Z2L
If we want to fight the People United decision from the bought off judges….maybe we should start with the Constitution…….all us bloggers that want6 to fight the “Corporations Are People” crowd then we should print or bookmark these writers efforts to inform us…there is a wealth of information in the article and all of it can be useful….
Well, parts of it……. so says Federal judge, Henry Hudson…….
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said in a 42-page opinion that the so-called individual mandate provision, which requires all Americans to buy some form of health insurance, would “invite unbridled exercise of the federal police powers.”
The Obama administration had argued that the individual mandate was essential to keep down nationwide health care costs, and that Congress had acted under its authority to regulate interstate commerce. But the judge said an individual’s decision to purchase — or to decline to purchase — health care from a private provider is beyond the “historical reach” the Constitution grants Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
So the Tea Party and the more Rightie of the GOP should be doing victory laps……or at least jerking off in the corner of their offices……but here is something that has NOT been mentioned……
Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform.As the Huffington Post and others first noted last July, Hudson’s annual financial disclosures show that he owns a sizable chunk of Campaign Solutions, Inc., a Republican consulting firm that worked this election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and a whole host of other GOP candidates who’ve placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms. Since 2003, according to the disclosures, Hudson has earned between $32,000 and $108,000 in dividends from his shares in the firm (federal rules only require judges to report ranges of income).
What was that the conservs call most judges that do not agree with them…..oh yeah…activist judges! This should make an immediate filing with the US Supreme Court…..This guy should have immediately removed himself fromn hearing this case on grounds of conflict of interests……
Will this ruling hold up to a challenge? I am sure that FOX will be reporting this every hour on the hour and will have all their minions working hard behind the scenes to make this stick in the public’s mind……..
January oughta be a an interesting beginning to an interesting year……
By now we all know who Pres. Obama has picked for the open position on the Supreme Court….just in case, it is Elena Kagan…..and immediately the Repubs have said that it is a disturbing choice or that she has NO litigation experience, she is the Solicitor General of the US, the top litigator in the government so that has a BS statement….what they are really pissed off about is that she has a short paper trail and it is one that the Repubs cannot use against her, with the exception of the recruiter thing.
If you recall back in the day when Sotomayor was in her hearings the Repubs were most concerned with activist judges…they are always concerned with activist judges unless they are conservative, then it is somehow okay for them to be opinionated……
But since Kagan has NOT worn a black robe she has NO trail that would be used to attack her on…..and since she has NOT been a judge, would not that make her perfect for the GOP to vote for, since she could NOT be an activist judge if she has not been a judge?
Just wondering…….it will be interesting to see how far the GOP is willing to go to defeat her and give Obama a loss in the political game…the one to watch will be Alabama’s Jeff Sessions….why?…..he was once nominated for a judgeship and did not make it….he has lots of animosity and will exact some small measure of revenge….
It is official! President Obama’s search for a successor to Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement Friday, picks up where Obama left off last year.
Who will it be? Who gets the nod? Who? Who? Who? It is time to change the complexion of the Court…and I am NOT talking about skin color….
USA Today is reporting on the leaders in this race for the seat:
Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy created when Justice David Souter retired. Three other candidates he interviewed for that vacancy remain possibilities: U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Chicago-based U.S. Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood.Among other legal figures likely in the mix, based on their credentials and backgrounds, are Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland, Attorney General Eric Holder and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who worked as an assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Clinton administration.
All would most likely be good selection, but why do we need another judge? Why not let someone who actually interprets the Constitution on a regular basis have a go?
My vote (for what it is worth) would be Jonathan Turley…..why?
He is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He lives in D.C. with his wife Leslie. He served as the consultant to the Florida House of Representatives on constitutional issues and also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He was also ranked among the nation’s top 500 lawyers in 2008. (He was previously ranked in the top ten military lawyers as well as one of the forty top lawyers under the age of forty).
His articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with over 500 articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is on the Board of Contributors of USA Today. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News and CBS News to cover stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to the presidential elections. Professor Turley is often a guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday.
(Thanx to wiki for the bio on Turley)
I think he would be the perfect addition to the Court because he is intelligent and has experience in constitutional law…that would be a first for the Court….a person who actually works with constitutional law and understands it well enough to teach it to our future leaders……plus he is well known to Congress for his numerous times testifying and he is known by academia as a well versed teacher and interpreter of the Constitution……
Obama could do a lot worse, but he could do NO better than nominating Jonathan Turley to SCOTUS…..it is time to nominate for experience and not for connections…..