This bugs me no end. I don’t care about the outcome of the Obamacare bill. Without it we’re screwed, but he made sure that with it we’re screwed as well. It’s a wash.
Justices Scalia and Thomas dined with the people litigating before them as they prepared to discuss the case. Not only is it improper, it’s flaunting. They are telling the world they don’t care about ethical conduct.
That demonstrates complete lack of integrity.
Piece of Mindful 
Term limits? Recall mechanism? Congressional oversight? This is not an insurmountable problem, unless our nation is too far gone to know the importance of equal rights under the law. Relying on “they-all-do-it” arguments just isn’t cutting it anymore.
And what are the other justices saying? Have they any interest in cleaning their own house? Restoring faith in the institution? Hmmmm.
LikeLike
Gee Mark, you should be overjoyed. If Obamacare gets thrown out it puts egg on the faces of all Dem water carriers who you’ve sparred with these last couple years.
LikeLike
I’d be so thrilled, Swede, if you forgot how to spell the terms “Democrat” and “Republican” and you never used them again. They are irrelevant.
LikeLike
Gee Mark, you should be overjoyed. If Obamacare gets thrown out it puts egg on the face of Rob, Pogie and the “Cowgirls”.
Better?
LikeLike
I’d be perfectly pleased if you would transmit to me in as few words as possible your impression of what “Obamacare” is.
LikeLike
Obamacare
“An informal term for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The two bills changed how health insurance functions in the United States. Among other provisions, Obamacare expanded eligibility of Medicaid and required most Americans to purchase health insurance. It also set up exchanges in the several states so insurers could compete with each other to provide the most cost effectiveness for consumers. It provided subsidies for health insurance premiums. Proponents argue Obamacare makes health insurance more affordable, while critics contend it is too expensive and constitutes excessive government interference in the U.S. economy. The legislation is named for U.S. President Barack Obama, who promoted it.”
My impression is that this monstrosity is a bureaucratic solution to problems caused originally by governments and insurance companies operating in their own best interests by eliminating the competitive marketplace and placating rich law firms.
Furthermore it’s a job killer, will destroy existing job provided ins. and eventually force all employees into an inferior product run by politicians with US Post Office efficiency.
LikeLike
So then, the Post Office actually being efficient has no market in your thought process?
Here’s my problem with you, in two nutshells: One, facts mean nothing. Other countries are doing health care really well. You never go beyond your narrow shell to look into that, but it’s reality. I cannot set Spain or France or Italy in front of you, as you cannot comprehend what is going on there. Somehow those systems have to be failing. Problem is that they are succeeding while we fail. You cannot be brought to see anything.
Two, you cannot get beyond words and into substance. Read what you wrote above about bureaucracy! The bureaucratic nightmare right before your eyes is private insurance, corrupted by the profit motive that makes people hide away from anyone who might need health care. You cannot see it because in your mind’s eye the only possible bureaucrats are in government.
A third nutshell you illustrated above. I asked for your words, and you quoted someone else. You cannot think for yourself. I don’t mean that to hurl insult at you. I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but it is what it is. You cannot think your own thoughts, and that is painfully apparent.
LikeLike
The PO is not efficient. Period. I know that by the facts. I have a past partner who works for them at 27th Street distb. center. Nightmare stories ’bout union stranglehold on the simple processing of mail.
6 Billion projected red ink this year. More money down the rat hole than the bottom 7 states send in as Federal Taxes individually. How’s them facts?
Secondly, the problem with health ins and govt. is when they COMBINE forces to screw the patient. Individually they’re weaker, combined a monolith.
We’ve had this out before. You can buy car ins from anywhere, any state. Void of most governmental mandates the free marketplace sets a lower price, better service.
To state that lawsuits or the fear of litigation has no bearing on HC costs is moronic. Again, govt. and law firms in collisional type arrangement. Back scratching on steroids.
I don’t believe any HC in any other country is better than ours. I don’t believe the perspective govts. reporting. I don’t believe other govts quality of care, ability to innovate and discover new cures/technologies. I don’t believe that anyone suffering from cancer has a better chance of surviving than here.
I do believe other countries become judge and jury when it comes to elderly care. I believe my folks and your mom might not be here today if they lived overseas.
Oh, Spain and Italy and most of the other Socialized Medicine countries.
They’re broke. Like the Post Office.
LikeLike
More irrelevance, more distraction. Inge, please.
Industry lobbyists invited by Sen. Baucus wrote “Obamacare.” The Supreme Court is supremely corporate in its doctrine. So, why on earth would anyone bet that the Court will overturn what drug companies, HMOs, insurance and equipment lobbyists worked so hard, and spent millions, to achieve? Does anyone really think they shoved this abomination down the throats of each and every living American just to be reversed by their own robed slaves? A pat hand needs no new cards, and Alice is still holding the Queen of Hearts.
LikeLike
As a bonus here’s a great take on Obamonomics.
“We have a lazy and incompetent government. The belief that piles of taxpayer money can solve any problem, by purchasing a first-class bureaucracy to generate a blizzard of official paperwork, is inherently lazy. The childish belief that America is pockmarked with problems only government can address, and only spending from Washington counts as “caring” about an issue, is the laziest belief a person could possibly have. Supplication is easy: just open your mouth and wait for it to be filled.
Obamanomics is based on the ironclad belief that government knows best, and has a sacred responsibility to strike down incorrect judgments from the free market. Of course someone who thinks that way won’t be much of a “cheerleader” for the economic liberty his hapless people cannot be entrusted with. On the other hand, someone who holds the healthy opposite of Obama’s beliefs can’t help but have stars in their eyes when they look upon their marvelous nation.”
LikeLike
Criticizing Scalia and Thomas at least implies that there is some hope for them to consider the issues and come to a fair conclusion. There is no such hope for the likes of Ruth Ginsberg or John Stevens, who are such robotic leftists that no one cares what they say or do.
LikeLike
Care to go beyond mere words and test your hypothesis with example? I tend to think that no one makes it to that level without being tested for reliability, that there are never any time bombs out on the court, haven’t been since Warren and Douglas. I thin they are all reliably conservative, with Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas being extemists, the other merely less so.
But even given all of that, only Thomas and Roberts and Alito seem predictable. The others are, after all, humans with good minds and good character. Scalia will occasionally surprise me. The other
sixfive do take trouble to reason through things. They are smart. Maybe one of Obama’s appointees will break free, but I doubt it.Remember, it is very easy to write a minority opinion or to vote against a bill you know is going to pass or for a bill you know is going to fail. There are very few true tests of character in DC. It’s far too easy for these people to be important without being truly good. The fact that Roberts, Thomas and Alito are so predictable tells me that they don’t really ever reason, but rather conclude and then search for reasons. Scalia and Roberts dining with litigants tells me they made their minds up and are merely enjoying themselves, their work done before arguments concluded. That’s sad.
LikeLike
Academics, Judges, and government in general are more liberal vocations. Your fret that things are so conservative is just a posture.
Justices have often drifted leftward. I don’t know of any drifting rightward.
It seems that I’ve noted the alleged conservative Justices occasionally voting for the liberal side. I’ve never noted Ruth Ginsberg voting for anything conservative.
Do you really think that Justices having lunch with a certain group will sway their opinion?
LikeLike
Except for Clarence Thomas, all of the judges have a little back and forth betweeen ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, some more so than others. Justice Stevens, who you mischaracterize as a robotic leftist, actually has far more votes that fall on the ‘conservative’ spectrum than any of the conservatives justices have liberal votes.
Aside from the issue of conservative votes vs liberal votes is the issue of corruption. Clarence Thomas is corrupt. If you look into the history of how this guy got his job, probably the least qualified supreme court justice ever nominated, and who he and his wife are making money from on the side its pretty obvious. Judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Thomas and his wife are basically thumbing their nose at this and undermining the integrity of the judicial branch to the extent not seen since before Franklin Roosevelt.
Planting seeds of doubt in the public’s mind must be avoided at all costs, since, as the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, “[t]he legitimacy of the Judicial Branch ultimately depends on its reputation for impartiality and nonpartisanship,”[5] and “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”[6] As the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania observed:
For generations . . . it has been taught that a judge must possess the confidence of the community; that [a judge] must not only be independent and honest, but, equally important, believed by all . . . to be independent and honest. ‘[J]ustice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.’ Without the appearance as well as the fact of justice, respect for the law vanishes in a democracy.[7]
LikeLike
Sorry, meant to leave you a linky with a breakdown of the ‘conservative’ vs. ‘liberal’ votes…by issue..from each justice from a couple years ago:
http://www.newyorkcourtwatcher.com/2009/02/supreme-court-ginsburgs-place-among-her.html
Plenty of cases come before the court where conservative vs liberal is not an issue. I dont really have a problem with a justice who votes conservatively on philosophical reasons, which for the most part I beleive to be the case with Scalia. When someone is obviously corrupt like Thomas though there isnt a hell of a lot that we can do about and it isnt the first time our country has faced that dilemma.
LikeLike
Jack R, I can largely agree with you here, but I’m a little more fond of Thomas than you are. He has voted more liberally on free speech issues.
Ginsberg was general counsel for the ACLU for many years. Can we expect her to vote any other way on such issues before the Court? I find this to be a sort of corruption. Elena Kagan had a largely political career before being appointed. How can one avoid the appearance of impropriety with such a background?
John Paul Stevens was much more conservative early on the Court. In his later years he was much more liberal and a reliable vote on those issues.
LikeLike
I dont agree that having a job prior to the nomination that may have implications for where a candidate falls on the left right spectrum is corruption or even creates an appearance of impropriety. Not even close to the same thing that we have with Thomas and the dealings of his wife. What it does do is reveal things about the candidate’s views that can be vetted (or at least sort of vetted) by the Senate.
LikeLike
Sorry, I skimmed right over the free speech issues thing the first time. Re-reading your post it made me laugh. Are you talking about citizens united? I give you props for irony if that was your intent.
LikeLike
OK, now, now facts that will not sway you: Italy, France, and Spain spend half of what we do on health care per capita, cover 100% of their population, and have better statistics than we do for general well being.
You cannot address that. I know. I will not ask.
And, the Post Office, which in my 61 years has failed to deliver one letter and has delivered many I wish they had not, was forced by congress to fully fund their pensions 75 years in advance. They are now required to fund pensions for people not even yet born. The reason? So people like you can say they are losing money.
You got nuthin’.
LikeLike
Fully funding pensions hurts now but helps later. If we have a later.
Your personal anecdote doesn’t mean the Post Office is well run.
Your health care mantra that Others “pay less and have better outcomes” is misleading. It’s like saying that in football, Penn State plays less and wins more than the Dolphins.
LikeLike
No, the pension funding was done by right wingers to allow them to complain that PO is running n the red. It was deliberate. No company in the world funds pensions out that far.
The Post Office is well-run, in my opinion. Postal workers perform low-level functions that do not require great intelligence, and are well-paid. How awful! Let’s screw them over, take away their benefits, treat them like regular workers.
Health care in other countries costs less and is better run with better outcomes, available to all as part of the commons. What the hell that has to do with Penn State is beyond me. Nice pull.
LikeLike
The solution is obvious: have the Post Office run health care!
European style health care is fine and dandy, as far as it goes. Fine with me if we adopt such.
But they are playing a different game than us. We give more procedures to sicker people, so we generate worse statistics. They are not magically better at keeping people healthier, or spending less money.
LikeLike
How many ways can one be wrong in one comment? Are you going for the record?
LikeLike
Looks like we may be able to see this bill’s demise on TV.
CSPAN chairman Brian Lamb wrote Chief Justice John Roberts today requesting that he break with Supreme Court tradition and allow for a televised broadcast of the oral arguments in the Obamacare case.
We believe the public interest is best served by live television coverage of this particular oral argument,” Lamb wrote. “It is a case which will affect every American’s life, our economy, and will certainly be an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.”
Lamb added that “a five-and-a-half hour argument begs for camera coverage.” He said that “interested citizens would be understandably challeged to adequately follow audio-only coverage of an event of this length with all the justices and various counsel participating.”
LikeLike