Is the Supreme Court courting us? What are we to make of this? Just when we thought the most politicized Supreme Court in modern history was incapable of rendering an impartial decision on anything it ruled that Arizona’s immigration law is unconstitutional and that the Affordable Health Care Act and its individual mandate are constitutional. What is even more remarkable is the fact that it was Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the majority opinion in the health care case. How could this be? Justice Roberts usually pulls matters into the ideological chasm rather than out of it. So why did he do it? People who know him say he was concerned about the court’s reputation and the perception that it has become too political. Frankly, this is a bit like saying that a man who just went on a killing spree also helped an old lady cross the street because he is concerned about the perception that our society has become too violent and uncaring. This is, after all, the Bush v. Gore court. This is the Citizens United court. This is the court that also reaffirmed Citizens United by ruling as unconstitutional the campaign financing laws Montana passed decades ago to combat the corruption that was so rampant before those laws were put in place. This is the same court that said corporations are people with all of the rights of people, whereas Labor unions are not people and do not have the same rights as people or corporations. It does not take much knowledge to realize which interests and which political party this court favors.
Anyone who thinks that ideological and political considerations will not continue to drive this court is being far too optimistic. Justice Scalia demonstrated that all too well. His comments regarding the federal government’s authority over immigration and Arizona’s outrageous immigration laws ignored and misstated many of the facts, and he launched a very partisan attack on President Obama. Such bombastic and partisan statements have traditionally been considered beneath the dignity of the court, but that is of little concern to Justice Scalia. Unfortunately the petulant statements he is so prone to making often seem to reflect what the other three “conservative” justices are actually thinking. In almost every instance Chief Justice Roberts has voted with the other three Republican appointed Justices. What probably made the Affordable Health Care Case different for Justice Roberts is the fact that it did not decide an election, restrict the rights of corporations, or restrict the use of money to influence elections or government policies. In other words, it did not decrease the rule of money!
The politicization of this court is particularly egregious because the apparent conflicts of interest make so many of its decisions suspect. For instance, the two justices, Scalia and Thomas, who should have recused themselves from the Affordable Health Care Case actually voted in a manner favorable to the interests that should have caused them to recuse themselves. Furthermore, a very brief search on the inter net will reveal many more examples of when Justice Scalia and particularly Justice Thomas ignored the rule of avoiding even the appearance of bias and refused to recuse themselves from cases in which it appeared they had conflicts of interest. If Chief Justice Roberts is really concerned about the reputation of the Supreme Court he should speak out against the frequent violations of this very fundamental rule of judicial ethics and he should call out the Justices are committing such violations. No court that tolerates the violation of judicial standards and the rules of judicial ethics can or should command the respect of the citizens of this nation of laws. In an earlier post I said the Health Care Case should be considered the last straw, and Justice Thomas should be impeached if he does not recuse himself from that case. He did not recuse himself, and I stand by my statement. Justice Scalia’s behavior is as odious and damaging to the court’s reputation as is the behavior of Justice Thomas, but the case that be made against Justice Scalia for impeachable offences is not as strong as the case that can be made against Justice Thomas. To they who fear the precedent of impeaching a Supreme Court Justice I say we had better fear the decisions of unethical justices who are allowed to stay on the court for life.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Dangerous Absurdities
If you believe what Mitt Romney is saying about the Affordable Health Care Act (Obama Care) you will have to conclude that “Romney Care” greatly increased taxes, created a huge deficit to the state budget, killed jobs and destroyed the small businesses in Massachusetts. It would be illogical to conclude anything else since the differences between Romney Care and the Affordable Health Care Act are so slight. The contention that such a program implemented by a state would somehow have a different impact on that state than a similar federal program would have on the nation is too absurd to even consider. I think Mr. Romney’s opponents in the primary did a good job of pointing out his hypocrisy regarding this issue. In truth though, the entire Republican Party is being hypocritical about health care. The only reason Republicans oppose “Obama Care” is because it was proposed by President Obama. Now the Republicans are crying great crocodile tears over the fact that a court they thought they owned ruled that the Affordable Health Care Act and the individual mandate it contains are constitutional.
Ah, but this is not the end of it. The ruling does not mean the health care act is desirable. Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, admitted that. He also threw the Republicans another bone by saying he based his ruling about the mandate on the federal government’s power to tax. Oh, happy days! This is the favorite issue of greedy old plutocrats. The slightest whiff of anything that could be considered a tax has them baying like hounds. “It’s a tax,” they howl, “an evil, job killing, Norquist defying tax! No one likes taxes, and God knows you don’t want to defy Grover Norquist!” The problem is that it was Mitt Romney who provided the best answer to the contention that the individual mandate is an undesirable tax. Mr. Romney did so by asking why responsible people who have health insurance should have to pay for the expensive treatment of people who depend on the emergency rooms for health care. Mr. Romney said it was only fair to make those irresponsible people buy health insurance so the rest of us will not have to pay for the medical care they receive. Even a Democrat has to admit that Mr. Romney raised a compelling argument. Mr. Romney should stick to that argument and defend his health care act. He should but he will not. Like other Republicans, Mitt Romney is putting his interests and those of his party ahead of the interests of this nation.
There does not appear anything Mitt Romney and the Republican Party will not do in an effort to discredit and defeat President Obama. When the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives Congressman Issa became the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and he promptly announced that he would conduct a hundred investigations of the Obama administration. Inquisition anyone? One of those, so called, investigations was of the fictional “gun walking” scandal. It was alleged that the ATF purposely sold guns to intermediaries in a failed attempt to trace those guns to the Mexican drug cartels. In an article published in Fortune Magazine, however, Katherine Eban states that the ATF never intentionally let guns fall into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. How does she know this? She did what Congressman Issa should have done; she asked people who were in a position to know what ATF agents in Arizona did. The fact that Congressman Issa never even bothered to question the ATF agents in Arizona indicates he had absolutely no interest in uncovering the facts about what really happened. Mr. Issa was far more interested in demanding documents the Justice department could not or should not produce. What is painfully obvious is that Congressman Issa was conducting an inquisition with the intent of holding Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress. Grand Inquisitor Issa even went so far as to repeat the dark fantasy told by the NRA. This scurrilous NRA lie asserts that President Obama wanted guns to fall into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that he could use the gun violence as an excuse for restricting guns in this country. I suppose George W. Bush also wanted to ban guns in this country when his administration set up “Wide Receiver” in an effort to trace guns going to Mexican drug cartels.
The Republicans have now set a new and dangerous precedent by holding Attorney General Holder in Contempt of Congress for not producing documents he could not legally produce and for not producing other document that fall under the executive privileged cited by so may presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. By holding the Attorney General in contempt the Republicans are acting as though there will be no tomorrow. They are acting as though any political gain they achieve by setting such a dangerous precedent will be a permanent gain. The problem for them is that reality has a way of asserting itself no matter how much they might want deny it, and the reality is that the same bad precedents they are setting in an effort to gain an unfair advantage on the Democrats can and very likely will be used against them in one form or another when the Democrats regain control of the House. Furthermore, the NRA’s ludicrous conspiracy theory and the outrageous attempt to destroy Mr. Holder are drawing attention to how badly we need to tighten our gun ownership laws. As Ms. Eban pointed out in her article, the reason the ATF agents could not arrest the intermediaries buying guns for the drug cartels is because prosecutors said our gun laws were so permissive they could not successfully prosecute the intermediaries. Wouldn’t it be wonderfully ironic if the NRA’s lies about the “gun walking” scandal actually accomplished what the NRA is falsely accusing President Obama of trying to do?
Ah, but this is not the end of it. The ruling does not mean the health care act is desirable. Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, admitted that. He also threw the Republicans another bone by saying he based his ruling about the mandate on the federal government’s power to tax. Oh, happy days! This is the favorite issue of greedy old plutocrats. The slightest whiff of anything that could be considered a tax has them baying like hounds. “It’s a tax,” they howl, “an evil, job killing, Norquist defying tax! No one likes taxes, and God knows you don’t want to defy Grover Norquist!” The problem is that it was Mitt Romney who provided the best answer to the contention that the individual mandate is an undesirable tax. Mr. Romney did so by asking why responsible people who have health insurance should have to pay for the expensive treatment of people who depend on the emergency rooms for health care. Mr. Romney said it was only fair to make those irresponsible people buy health insurance so the rest of us will not have to pay for the medical care they receive. Even a Democrat has to admit that Mr. Romney raised a compelling argument. Mr. Romney should stick to that argument and defend his health care act. He should but he will not. Like other Republicans, Mitt Romney is putting his interests and those of his party ahead of the interests of this nation.
There does not appear anything Mitt Romney and the Republican Party will not do in an effort to discredit and defeat President Obama. When the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives Congressman Issa became the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and he promptly announced that he would conduct a hundred investigations of the Obama administration. Inquisition anyone? One of those, so called, investigations was of the fictional “gun walking” scandal. It was alleged that the ATF purposely sold guns to intermediaries in a failed attempt to trace those guns to the Mexican drug cartels. In an article published in Fortune Magazine, however, Katherine Eban states that the ATF never intentionally let guns fall into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. How does she know this? She did what Congressman Issa should have done; she asked people who were in a position to know what ATF agents in Arizona did. The fact that Congressman Issa never even bothered to question the ATF agents in Arizona indicates he had absolutely no interest in uncovering the facts about what really happened. Mr. Issa was far more interested in demanding documents the Justice department could not or should not produce. What is painfully obvious is that Congressman Issa was conducting an inquisition with the intent of holding Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress. Grand Inquisitor Issa even went so far as to repeat the dark fantasy told by the NRA. This scurrilous NRA lie asserts that President Obama wanted guns to fall into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that he could use the gun violence as an excuse for restricting guns in this country. I suppose George W. Bush also wanted to ban guns in this country when his administration set up “Wide Receiver” in an effort to trace guns going to Mexican drug cartels.
The Republicans have now set a new and dangerous precedent by holding Attorney General Holder in Contempt of Congress for not producing documents he could not legally produce and for not producing other document that fall under the executive privileged cited by so may presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. By holding the Attorney General in contempt the Republicans are acting as though there will be no tomorrow. They are acting as though any political gain they achieve by setting such a dangerous precedent will be a permanent gain. The problem for them is that reality has a way of asserting itself no matter how much they might want deny it, and the reality is that the same bad precedents they are setting in an effort to gain an unfair advantage on the Democrats can and very likely will be used against them in one form or another when the Democrats regain control of the House. Furthermore, the NRA’s ludicrous conspiracy theory and the outrageous attempt to destroy Mr. Holder are drawing attention to how badly we need to tighten our gun ownership laws. As Ms. Eban pointed out in her article, the reason the ATF agents could not arrest the intermediaries buying guns for the drug cartels is because prosecutors said our gun laws were so permissive they could not successfully prosecute the intermediaries. Wouldn’t it be wonderfully ironic if the NRA’s lies about the “gun walking” scandal actually accomplished what the NRA is falsely accusing President Obama of trying to do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)