Obama fires shot across the Supreme Court's bow

[ProSense]

Obama fires shot across the Supreme Court's bow

by Geekesque

<...>

Full statement below.

I actually continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is, because in accordance with precedent out there, it's Constitutional.

"That's not just my opinion by the way. That's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn't even a close case."

"I think it's important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People's lives are affected by the lack of availability of healthcare, the inaffordability of healthcare, their inability to get healthcare because of preexisting conditions.

"The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people healthcare that wouldn't otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have healthcare right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get healthcare because they can't be prevented from getting healthcare as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That is part of this law.

"Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to the insurance companies, and are getting preventive care because of this law.

"So, that's just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn't speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it's fully implemented in 2014.

"And I think it's important, I think the American people understand and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare.


"So there's not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this but there's a human element to this, and I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate. Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step."

(In response to follow up question)

"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who've examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-healthcare-law-20120402,0,1715593.story

The President went there and said it: what the 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court are contemplating is a massive, unprecedented power-grab at the expense of the democratically-accountable branches to impose its ideology at the expense of the physical health of millions of Americans.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/02/1080030/-Obama-fires-shot-across-the-Supreme-Court-s-bow

[Atman]

1. Unfortunately, the 5 of the 9 will only be emboldened by this.

There is not more jurisprudence on the Supreme Court. Just ideology and politics, because the heads of the court were appointed under ideological circumstances. They were places there as political favors by political people, and they are incapable of "judging" based upon the law. Unless you want to accept that "the law" is only what a right-winger says it is. I wonder what Clarence Thomas has to say about this? Talk about getting the greatest life-time gig in the history of politics! He doesn't even even have to say or write anything! He just sits back and says "Yessir!" to The Bush Family that brung him his cushy lifetime job. THAT is what is wrong with the SCOTUS. And believe me, Roberts and Alito are not better. Bought and paid for political hacks. Democracy ended the day George W. Bush was anointed President.

.

[SoCalMusicLover]

2. Getting Ready For That 5-4 Decision Against

Clearly they know it's coming. The writing is on the wall.

When it happens they will not be so cordial in their remarks towards the court. Maybe they can talk to Al Gore to find out what it's like when you argue a case before the court, that's been decided before it's even presented.

[dotymed]

85. When FDR threatened to "pack" the SCOTUS

with extra justices, they figured out that he would fight and win for Americans. I wish it had been done for Universal H.C.

[tularetom]

3. I think the court will find the act to be constitutional

But not because Obama called them out.

The insurance industry wanted the individual mandate because it gave them access to a shitload of new customers. I think their plan was to have the court uphold the law and the mandate and then work on the republican congress to gut the consumer protection aspects of the act, such as the preexisting condition and lifetime cap clauses.

Somebody didn't get word to the 5 stooges on the court that their bosses wanted this thing upheld. But now that some of their silly ass comments have gone public, you can bet that the people that control the black robed douchebags will vote the correct way.

[tinrobot]

28. Better than the alternative - public option and/or expanded Medicare

If the insurance mandate is overruled, the only other way to fix health care is for the government to start providing more and more of it. Can't risk losing customers to affordable government programs.

[AndyTiedye]

37. If it is Overturned, We Return to What we Had Before. Health Care Will Not be Fixed

[SemperEadem]

73. exactly

we saw what a rush congress was in to implement single payer.

[rgbecker]

4. Thanks for this link.

Hopefully Obama is right.

[Hugabear]

5. Of course, if President Romney proposed the very same law, it wouldn't even be an issue

If it made it to the SCOTUS, the neocons would be all over themselves passing this.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Would we be fighting against it? n/t

[abelenkpe]

10. good question! nt

[stevenleser]

13. Not fighting against, but complaining that more wasnt done.

And quietly, or perhaps not so quietly, cringing in horror that they did it before us.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Then for some of us, nothing has changed because we are complaining that more wasn't done and

not so quietly cringing in horror as this is/was a Republican idea, even if the GOP and the for profit "health" insurance corporations are playing br'er rabbit about it.

[Bandit]

33. We certainly did in 1993, and defeated it......

Twenty Republican Senators sponsored a bill almost identical to this one in 1993. Democrats were very much opposed to it and ended up defeating it.. The Clinton Bill wanted Employers to be the ones MANDATED to provide insurance for every employee. Republicans hated such a Mandate and said it should be on the individual and not on the business..IMO Both were and are quite wrong.. It should be a Government responsibility as the Constitution pretty much says.. Government is to maintain the General Welfare of the Nation.. Health it the greatest aspect of maintaining the General Welfare... But I am fairly certain I will never live long enough to see sanity prevail..

[joshcryer]

80. Nixon passed Social Security Supplimental.

Against it?

[Uncle Joe]

81. Was that a non-profit government program?

[joshcryer]

82. It was mandated.

[Uncle Joe]

84. I don't have a problem with taxation or mandating funds to be sent to governmental non-profits

for the public good, per se.

[Sherman A1]

15. Of Course,

there is that pesky little fact that Romney will never be President, but I digress.

[Dont call me Shirley]

6. Insane Clown Posse of Conservative SCJs enacted a coup d'etat the day they stopped a

presidential vote count, not only usurping the state's voting laws but overturning the true winner of the election, Al Gore.

The bushes are criminals with their grubby paws into everything.

Way to go President Obama, for standing up to these 5 criminals.

[freshwest]

21. +1,000. Thanks for that.

[Arugula Latte]

8. Five members of SCOTUS are a complete joke. Of course they will overturn it.

They are there to bring fascism to America. It's as simple as that.

[Fumesucker]

9. I thought the mandate was about health insurance?

And yet Obama speaks of health care, not health insurance.

Health insurance is not the same thing as health care.

And the PATRIOT Act was also passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, I guess that makes it tickety boo then.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Health Insurance provides ...

ACCESS to healthcare.

[mike_c]

27. no, health insurance LIMITS access to health care....

The U.S. is the only developed nation left that relies exclusively on charity and for-profit health insurance for access to health care, and it has the highest health care costs by far, and among the lowest effective access. For-profit health insurance is not part of the solution-- it's largely the cause of the problem.

[annabanana]

34. not a minor distinction...

You have hit the nail on the head.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. I agree that ...

For-profit insurance schemes are a part of the problem; however, given the system as it stands, insurance provides access.

I won't re-litigate what could have beeen done 3 years ago, given the make-up of Congress, nor should have been done in a perfect world.

[enlightenment]

36. Really?

Maybe for some. For many, health insurance does little to nothing to provide access - because in the end it still costs too much (after huge deductibles, co-pays, percentage payments, and outright claim denials).

I honestly don't think that many people who have sufficient health insurance coverage bother to look at how little insurance covers for many others. It's one thing to say "my kids can still be covered on my policy" or "I can get coverage now and couldn't before" - it's another to look at the details of what people can actually afford and what they are getting at the levels that people with sufficient coverage don't have to consider as an option.

Health insurance that you cannot afford to use is not access to health care. It is a monthly donation to a private, for-profit company that may give you some coverage for a catastrophic medical crisis.

But just your average health care? Not a chance.

[SammyWinstonJack]

65. Yeah sure it does, except when it doesn't.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. The vote was Friday, whats done is done. I wonder if he knows something

that he can't talk about yet.


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403796n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

^snip^

The Supreme Court voted on President Obama's health care reform case on Friday.

[DCBob]

14. Im sure he knows something.

If there was good result I doubt he would be making these comments.

[Motown_Johnny]

46. Hmmm......

Wouldn't you think that if he knew the individual mandate was going to be overturned that he would be out talking about employer mandates or automatic enrollment? Maybe even going back to the late enrollment penalties he talked about during the primary in '08?


On the other hand, if he knew he had won wouldn't it be smart to get out there and look like your will alone is shaping history?


I guess this is all open to interpretation, but to me this quote is pretty telling:


"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And again, that's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who've examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency."




If he knew it was overturned why in the world would he say he is confident it will be upheld? It would do nothing but make him look like he didn't understand the issue once it came out that his confidence was misplaced.

[DCBob]

48. Im starting to change my mind and agree wth you.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. Holy Crap! This is DU !! WE DON'T DO THAT HERE!!!!

Stand your ground, so to speak. Tell me how wrong I am.

It doesn't need to make sense it just needs to HAVE CAPS!

[DCBob]

86. Ha! ... but I think I might be changing my mind again.

I heard Prez say today he's "pretty certain" the SCOTUS will uphold his healthcare law. That's sounds quite a bit less confident than he was before. Bottom line... I have no idea actually how this is going to go down..

[boxman15]

17. He may or may not.

Sometimes the court's justices will leak initial votes to the White House or other officials in advance if they're both on the same side.

I don't know what to read into Obama's statement. What he's saying is certainly right, but I don't know if he actually knows what the SCOTUS vote is judging solely off these comments. If we see a ton of defensive tweets and statements from people like Axelrod or Plouffe in the next couple months and/or we see a lot of leaks of replacement plans coming from Democratic officials, then it would be safe to say the law or the mandate provision will go down.

Kennedy and the other justices can still change votes between now and June, though.

[marlakay]

20. weird that they don't tell until 2 months later

hard to believe it wouldn't get leaked out with something this major...

[mike_c]

44. there is the minor task of actually writing the Court's opinion...

...that occupies the justices and their clerks for some weeks.

[bongbong]

54. Why should it take so long?

On this decision, and in fact for all the decisions that Fat Tony, Robbie The Robot, and the rest of the 5 clowns hand down, all they need is one sentence:

"Our bosses, the billionaires, have ordered us to strike down any law that stops them from owning 99.99% of the planet"

[mike_c]

64. see what I mean...?

It'll take weeks of work by skilled writers to bury that meaning in prose that makes everyone feel better about it.

[mike_c]

12. is he just stubborn as hell or does he really not get it...?

"...in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare."

That statement is only true within the narrow context of preserving the middlemen who offer no added value to health care, but rather increase its costs continuously in order to siphon off ever increasing amounts of profit. It would be more correct to say "In the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare without disrupting the profits of health insurance corporations and their executives."

You can, in fact, "have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare." You can see to it that they do, either by mandating that insurance companies provide it without profit, as some developed countries do, or you can provide alternative means of delivering health care, such as extending Medicare eligibility to everyone, or at least to anyone who is excluded by commercial insurers.

I think Obama is smart enough to know that. He certainly talked about it during his 2008 campaign, so he's either being somewhat disingenuous now or he's actively trying to maintain the narrative that excludes real solutions.

[ProSense]

22. Actually, it's

is he just stubborn as hell or does he really not get it...?

"...in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare."

That statement is only true within the narrow context of preserving the middlemen who offer no added value to health care, but rather increase its costs continuously in order to siphon off ever increasing amounts of profit. It would be more correct to say "In the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare without disrupting the profits of health insurance corporations and their executives."

<...>

I think Obama is smart enough to know that. He certainly talked about it during his 2008 campaign, so he's either being somewhat disingenuous now or he's actively trying to maintain the narrative that excludes real solutions.

...neither. The President never claimed that a mandate was unconstitutional. He always argued that affordability needed to precede a mandate.

<...>

SEN. OBAMA...According to Senator Clinton...there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care...If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate....

MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --

SEN. CLINTON...Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.

<...>

SEN. OBAMA...I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

The President does "get it." It's only those who seek to twist his words or ignore the full context of his statements who believe otherwise.

Krugman: "Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate" (2011)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002503913

[jillan]

23. +1 Yes Senator Obama was against a mandate on the campaign trail but

it's easy to say what you want when you are out campaigning.

Then the reality of governing steps in.
And the reality was a Congress that fought him, and is still fighting him, every step of the way.

[mike_c]

25. I think you missed my point....

Pres. Obama keeps saying "you can't have a mechanism" when you manifestly CAN have a mechanism without an individual mandate "to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare." Lots of other countries do so, so it's demonstrably possible. Obama is simply wrong to suggest that it isn't, or he's not being entirely forthcoming.

What you can't do is provide such a mechanism AND preserve the obscene profits of the health insurance vultures simultaneously. So what does Obama seem to want most? A mechanism for providing affordable health care for everyone? There are LOTS of proven models to choose from. They work so well that none of the people who enjoy them want to give them up in favor of our messed up for-profit system, with or without the ACA. Or is his primary objective protecting the profits of the 1% who donate billions to democratic campaigns? Because that's the ONLY thing his insistence on an individual mandate really does-- it protects the profits of the industry. An industry that provides an unneeded service, and is a vast and expensive parasite on the health care system.

[ProSense]

26. No

Pres. Obama keeps saying "you can't have a mechanism" when you manifestly CAN have a mechanism "to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare." Lots of other countries do so. Obama is simply wrong about that, or he's not being entirely forthcoming.

...he's not wrong. He's speaking in the context of the health care law. You're extrapolating his statement to apply to single payer, which is not the context.

Also, that mechanism is used in other countries too. Germany (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/01/1079750/-Health-Care-In-Germany-Works) and Switzerland. Here's Krugman on Swiss health care:

<...>

Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.

In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.

The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.

Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.

Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.

In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Healthcare in Switzerland is universal[1] and is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994 (Krankenversicherungsgesetz - KVG). Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). International civil servants, members of permanent missions and their family members are exempted from compulsory health insurance. They can, however, apply to join the Swiss health insurance system, within six months of taking up residence in the country.

Health insurance covers the costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation of the insured. However, the insured person pays part of the cost of treatment. This is done (a) by means of an annual excess (or deductible, called the franchise), which ranges from CHF 300 to a maximum of CHF 2,500 as chosen by the insured person (premiums are adjusted accordingly) and (b) by a charge of 10% of the costs over and above the excess up to a stop-loss amount of CHF 700.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

I still believe that single payer is more efficient.

[mike_c]

29. now we're going in circles....

I said:

That statement is only true within the narrow context of preserving the middlemen who offer no added value to health care, but rather increase its costs continuously in order to siphon off ever increasing amounts of profit.

You said:

...he's not wrong. He's speaking in the context of the health care law.

Exactly.


You said:

I still believe that single payer is more efficient.

I agree, 100 percent.

[ProSense]

35. Sure, if

you mix and match responses. Let me fix that.

You said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=508187

I said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=508230

Like I said, context matters.

[marlakay]

18. Supreme court in this country has the most power

and can do anything almost and not get fired and lasts for life…thats why election on who picks them are so important.

[Faygo Kid]

19. Bleak outlook. But, there's hope for a 6-3 favorable decision

Obviously, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are gone. They are GOP tools first, and "justices" second.

It all hinges, as usual, on Kennedy. If he votes to uphold it, there's every possibility that Roberts will join to make it a 6-3 decision, and even write the decision himself. His historical legacy as chief justice is at stake here.

Of course, that's a reach. More likely is that Kennedy votes to throw the whole thing out, in which case Roberts will join him in another 5-4 decision that will live in infamy.

[TransitJohn]

30. Conflating insurance with care sucks, no matter who does it. eom

n/t

[hughee99]

31. There are a lot of good things in this legislation,

an attempt to control medical costs, the coverage of pre-existing conditions, and the millions of people who will be able to obtain health coverage, but none of them has any legal bearing on whether the law is constitutional or not.

One could argue that warrentless wiretaps, extra-judicial killings, and holding prisoners without charge have many benefits, but none of those benefits make them constitutional either.

As far as overturning a law that was passed by a democratically elected congress, I wouldn't call that "unprecedented" nor would I expect a professor that taught Constitutional Law to call it that either.

[deaniac21]

32. I'm sure he has the 5 shivering and afraid.

The Emperor hath no clothing.

[Major Hogwash]

38. This is great news.

Because President Obama is a Constitutional scholar.

[MadHound]

39. Sure you can have a mechanism to

"ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get healthcare." It's called single payer UHC. It is the only sane, beneficial way to proceed.

[msongs]

40. obama's grasp of the obvious is not that good in this matter lol nt

[Thinkingabout]

41. If mandates are unconstitutional then those

Who do not have insurance has mandated the rest of us to pay their bill. Repubs claim they do not like redistribution but sure are fighting giving up redistribution when it comes to health care. It is really the bill was by a Democrat and by request of Democrat President so they are against it.

[Fumesucker]

47. Is it your position that no one in the US dies due to lack of health care?

Because that's the assumption implicit in your claim.

The redistribution is to the insurance companies, the public will never see a thin dime of that money.

[Vattel]

42. I hate the suggestion that the Court

should as a matter of course defer to the idiots in Congress who pass laws. Maybe when it is a really close call, deference is appropriate and the law should stand; but if a law is clearly unconstitutional, then it should be struck down even if it was passed unanimously in Congress.

There's no power grab being contemplated here. The Court has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution.

That being said, I agree with Obama and many legal experts that, given how broadly the commerce clause has been interpreted since FDR, it's hard to see how the mandate could be regarded as unconstitutional. But I look forward to reading the opinion regardless of what the decision is.

[ProSense]

43. Technically,

I hate the suggestion that the Court

should as a matter of course defer to the idiots in Congress who pass laws. Maybe when it is a really close call, deference is appropriate and the law should stand; but if a law is clearly unconstitutional, then it should be struck down even if it was passed unanimously in Congress.

...I agree, but it seems the point is that the SCOTUS is leaning toward a political decision, not one based on precedent.

In fact, the SCOTUS struck down McCain-Feingold when it gave us Citizens United. That was political too.

[Vattel]

45. I guess what I don't understand

is why you are so certain that Citizens United was political. The majority opinion was well-argued (as was the dissenting opinion). We can go back and forth about who had the stronger argument, but I just don't see evidence that political ideology corrupted the process. I know it's popular around here to claim that the conservative members of the Court are just trying to impose their own political ideology, but that picture strikes me as way too simplistic. It would be naive to suppose that any justice isn't influenced by his or her own political ideology and moral values, but most of them are also influenced by their legal philosophy and good old-fashioned logic and consistency and evidence. I think if you want to attack Citizens United, you should find the holes in Kennedy's argument rather than speculating about whether the decision showed no respect for the actual law and instead imposed a certain political agenda.

[ProSense]

53. What gave

I guess what I don't understand

is why you are so certain that Citizens United was political. The majority opinion was well-argued (as was the dissenting opinion). We can go back and forth about who had the stronger argument, but I just don't see evidence that political ideology corrupted the process. I know it's popular around here to claim that the conservative members of the Court are just trying to impose their own political ideology, but that picture strikes me as way too simplistic. It would be naive to suppose that any justice isn't influenced by his or her own political ideology and moral values, but most of them are also influenced by their legal philosophy and good old-fashioned logic and consistency and evidence. I think if you want to attack Citizens United, you should find the holes in Kennedy's argument rather than speculating about whether the decision showed no respect for the actual law and instead imposed a certain political agenda.

...you that idea? "Simplistic," really? I mean, John Roberts lied in his confirmation hearing.

Question: Why did Roberts and Alito turn out so conservative? Answer: Partisan entrenchment
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/06/question-why-did-roberts-and-alito-turn.html

Bush v. Gore?

Role in Fla. recount now in focus
Judge advised Governor Bush in 2000 battle

By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times | July 23, 2005

WASHINGTON -- As the 2000 presidential recount battle raged in Florida, a Washington lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr. traveled to Tallahassee, the state capital, to dispense legal advice.
Article Tools

He operated in the shadows during at least some of those 37 days, never signing a legal brief and rarely making an appearance at the makeshift headquarters for George W. Bush's legal team.

But now Roberts has been selected for the very Supreme Court that settled the recount by putting Bush into office, chosen by the president to replace the swing vote in the 5-to-4 decision. And his work in Florida during that time is suddenly coming into focus, giving critics some ammunition to paint a respected jurist with an apparently unblemished legal career as an ideological partisan.

Republican lawyers who worked on the recount said Wednesday that Roberts advised Governor Jeb Bush on the role that he and the Florida Legislature might play in the recount battle. At the time, when GOP officials feared that Vice President Al Gore might win a recount battle in court, Republican state lawmakers were devising a plan to use their constitutional power to simply assign the state's electoral votes to Bush -- a plan that drew a sharp rebuke from Democrats.

- more -

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/23/role_in_fla_recount_now_in_focus/

The Politicization of the Supreme Court
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/supreme_court.html

Politics and the Court
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/opinion/05sat1.html

As for the hole in their argument on Citizens, corporations are not people.

<...>

Yet this is the most confused part of the commentary (and reaction) of most to this kind of regulation. If the government's reason for silencing corporations is that they don't like what corporations would say -- if it thinks, for example, that it would be too Republican, or too pro-business -- then that's got to be a terrible reason for the regulation, and we all ought to support a decision that strikes a law so inspired.

That, however, is not the only, or the best, justification behind the regulations at issue in Citizens United. Those rules not about suppressing a point of view. They're about avoiding a kind of dependency that undermines trust in our government. The concentrated, and tacitly, coordinated efforts by large and powerful economic entities -- made large and powerful in part because of the gift of immunity given by the state -- could certainly help lead many to believe "money is buying results" in Congress. Avoiding that belief -- just like avoiding the belief that money bought results on the Supreme Court -- has got to be an important and valid interest of the state.

If the Court really means to say that entities that fund or create other entities can't limit the power of those entities to speak -- so the government can't stop doctors from talking about abortion, or the IRS can't stop non-profits from talking about politics -- then we really have crossed a Bladerunner line. For that conclusion really does mean that these entities were "created with certain unalienable rights," even though they were created by a pretty pathetic creator -- the state.

My point is not that the state's power to condition should be unlimited. The point instead is that it's not so simple, or absolute, as Greenwald would have it. And given the true complexity of these evolving and complicated doctrines, it is certainly fair to be critical in the extreme of this decision by the Court, favoring speech that most believe it naturally likes (unlike abortion-speak), in a decision that ignores the judgment of Congress about the conditions under which the integrity of that body, or any election, proceeds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-principled-and-pure-fir_b_439082.html

[Vattel]

56. Seriously? You think there is a clear assumption

in Kennedy's opinion that corporations are people? Quote the part of the opinion where Kennedy makes this assumption. He does claim that the first amendment protects the speech of various kinds of groups of people, including corporations; and while that may be arguable, it isn't obviously mistaken. If you look seriously into the issue, you find that the arguments on both sides of the issue here are actually interesting and intellectually challenging.

[ProSense]

58. Why?

Seriously? You think there is a clear assumption

in Kennedy's opinion that corporations are people? Quote the part of the opinion where Kennedy makes this assumption. He does claim that the first amendment protects the speech of various kinds of groups of people, including corporations; and while that may be arguable, it isn't obviously mistaken. If you look seriously into the issue, you find that the arguments on both sides of the issue here are actually interesting and intellectually challenging.

You just did, and my argument is that corporations are not people.

A corporation can't speak.

[Vattel]

63. I do agree with you, of course, that corporations cannot literally speak.

I wish that settled the issue. Unfortunately, things aren't that simple, as I suspect you know. Individuals often coordinate their actions with other individuals so that collectively they produce things like political advertisements. In that non-literal sense groups can speak. Is such speech not protected under the first amendment? No serious legal scholar says that it isn't. The real question is whether it is reasonable to make an exception for a certain kind of group--namely, corporations--and so justifiably place greater restrictions on their speech than on the speech of other individuals or groups.

[ProSense]

68. That's not

I do agree with you, of course, that corporations cannot literally speak.

I wish that settled the issue. Unfortunately, things aren't that simple, as I suspect you know. Individuals often coordinate their actions with other individuals so that collectively they produce things like political advertisements. In that non-literal sense groups can speak. Is such speech not protected under the first amendment? No serious legal scholar says that it isn't. The real question is whether it is reasonable to make an exception for a certain kind of group--namely, corporations--and so justifiably place greater restrictions on their speech than on the speech of other individuals or groups.

...the same thing. It's impossible to equate advocacy by an individual or a group of individuals to a corporation, which doesn't speak for everyone associated with it, all its employees, investors and principals. The Court's decision simply gave more weight to money, equating dollars to people.

[Vattel]

75. I won't argue with you on this.

You are now addressing the real issue because you are trying to draw a pricipled distinction between the speech of an ordinary group of individuals and the speech of corporations. Cheers.

[Kennah]

49. This gives me an AWFUL feeling

This President has been criticized by many SUPPORTERS for not tooting his own horn enough. I think it's a legitimate observation, so I don't find it likely he's now basking in glory of victory.

This President called out the SCOTUS on Citizen's United, and with good reason. He is, before the fact, calling out the SCOTUS on ACA. If ACA is struck down, it creates a great talking point for the campaign.

"Twice now in my first term, the SCOTUS has engaged in judicial activism. Elections are now for sale to the highest bidder and health care is available, once again, only to those who can afford it."

I don't mean to imply the President is delighting in the overturning of ACA to score election points. The GOP ass clowns are doing their fair share and then some to hand it to Obama. What I mean is the President is laying the groundwork for lemons to lemonade if ACA is overturned.

[mfcorey1]

51. He wins either way by exposing some of the justices for their ability to make decisions on the

merits of the case.

[SATIRical]

52. This scares me

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress."

It passed the House by 7 votes. It passed the Senate with less than a veto-override majority.

If the SCOTUS does overturn laws passed by a democratically-elected Congress, what laws WOULD it overturn?

Can you imagine the outrage and accusations of complete ignorance of history of W had made this statement?

I guess he also thinks the SCOTUS does not have the power to overturn the Patriot Act?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

57. this line is utter bullshit...

"Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. "

First, it is a blatant lie. The Supreme Court has overturned MANY MANY laws that HAD to be passed by a majority in Congress. Does he think no one is listening?

Secondly, one of the Court's primary functions is review of laws to determine if they pass constitutional muster. Hell, it is their most important job. Without it, we fall to the whim of 'democracy'...

Judicial activism is simply-enough defined as "the court overturning something you like"...

sP

[ProSense]

60. Huh?

this line is utter bullshit...

"Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. "

First, it is a blatant lie. The Supreme Court has overturned MANY MANY laws that HAD to be passed by a majority in Congress. Does he think no one is listening?

Secondly, one of the Court's primary functions is review of laws to determine if they pass constitutional muster. Hell, it is their most important job. Without it, we fall to the whim of 'democracy'...

Judicial activism is simply-enough defined as "the court overturning something you like"...

"Utter bullshit" and "blatant lie" are rather strong for a complete misread of the the point.

As I said here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=508722), it seems the point is that the SCOTUS is leaning toward a political decision, not one based on precedent.

In fact, the SCOTUS struck down McCain-Feingold when it gave us Citizens United. That was political too.

You go on to say that the "Court's primary functions is review of laws to determine if they pass constitutional muster," which means that basing decisions on political agendas is hackery.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

61. didn't miss the point at all...

the court has always been political...like it or not. doesn't mean it's a good thing. the line President Obama uttered is still just flat out wrong. Obama, being a constitutional scholar and professor of the subject KNOWS this.

sP

[ProSense]

62. So

"didn't miss the point at all...the court has always been political...like it or not. doesn't mean it's a good thing."

....now you're claiming that the Court's "primary functions" isn't the "review of laws to determine if they pass constitutional muster"?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

67. ah...I see you're point

yes, there is a complete disconnect here. they SHOULD not be political...they SHOULD provide opinion aside from political affiliation but that has never been the case. both sides of the court fail to provide logical analysis minus the lens of their political beliefs.

having said that, it is still bullshit to claim the court has never overturned a law...regardless of the reason. overturning ANY law has a hint of politics to it...even in a 9-0 decision.

sP

[ProSense]

77. Evidently,

I was wrong to assume it was strictly a reference to politics. The President also had precedent in mind: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002511792

[Romulox]

71. You are, of course, 100% correct. nt

[BanzaiBonnie]

59. And if this court does not uphold the law?

Can the insurance companies go back and collect anything they paid out under the law?

[TheKentuckian]

66. A shot across the bow implies a warning of further action. Action he cannot produce.

He is making a case and a fairly weak one at that but he does have something in his pocket, that fascists will support a fascist law.

Reich wingers love unlimited government, they just want it to facilitate profits and to be funded by the "small people" rather than benefiting them. As long as the government isn't giving anyone a hand or slowing down the pigs at the trough then the Reich cannot spend enough nor can they even slightly tolerate any limits on government power and authority.

After all, this could be the foundation to move from taxation, letting the "small people" bear the proportional weight of maintaining the society by mandating fees to private for profit organizations and industry, finally allowing the flat tax to come to fruition with expanded opportunities to actually directly profit from the exchange.
Why have progressive taxation when you can simply order the peons to pay directly, while the "job creators" chip in the same which is pocket change. A fee for service model is the goal but first it has to be okay for the government to be able to dictate how post tax dollars are spent and to be able to compel citizens to enter contracts with for profit companies.
Then you can drastically cut taxes, maybe first for the "small people" so they don't get jumpy as the fees and premiums and cost sharing kick in allowing the idea to get some traction along with a big push by the media to largely be rid of taxes.

Supposed liberals who have argued to blur the lines between taxes, fees, mandates, and penalties will have a share of the hell and have sold our children into slavery.

[Kablooie]

69. If it's overturned it will give Romney a boost too. Some on SCOTUS may take that into account.

They aren't supposed to of course, but why not break the law when you are the law itself and you can get buddies into politics with no penalty.
Short term thinking is fine when you are a conservative.

[Romulox]

70. I don't think the President's statement will influence the outcome one way or the other. nt

[Brigid]

72. This is a "shot across the bow?"

Wow! Then I can't wait to see what Obama has waiting for them when he draws up alongside and opens fire in earnest!

[cherokeeprogressive]

74. A shot across the bow of a separate/equal branch of government.

gets no rec from me.

[ProSense]

76. Because

"A shot across the bow of a separate/equal branch of government."

...members of Congress never call out the President or demand the impeachment of Justices?

[cherokeeprogressive]

78. Precedent is not always right. n/t

[Scurrilous]

79. K & R

[dotymed]

83. Honestly, even in this money controlled, totally inept "justice" system,

how did Clarence Thomas (who should be in prison for tax evasion) not have to recuse himself from this case?