tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3980421295592818922.post6492838640382941754..comments2023-10-23T14:15:29.331-07:00Comments on Shallow Cogitations: They See Obama. They Be Hatin'Hank Greerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15243840232233423724noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3980421295592818922.post-21808846287984623002012-07-18T06:05:22.532-07:002012-07-18T06:05:22.532-07:00Hank, you have to admit Obama is deceptive on outs...Hank, you have to admit Obama is deceptive on outsourcing. During the last campaign he promised to renegotiate NAFTA, but at the same time sent an envoy to Canada to say he didn't mean it. He not only didn't reopen NAFTA, he signed MORE unfair trade deals to make outsourcing even easier. Onama definitely lied. You're lying if you say he didn't.<br /><br />Yes, Romney outsourced jobs, that's true. But the structure of unfair trade, deals signed by Clinton and Obama that gutted wage, safety, labor, and environmental ptotections, are what made outsourcing inevitable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3980421295592818922.post-74170917613136301192012-07-15T19:44:46.255-07:002012-07-15T19:44:46.255-07:00Now, don't be pointing fingers and naming name...Now, don't be pointing fingers and naming names, you never know when an Idaho judge will declare jihad on your ass.<br /><br />Changing the topic, I wonder if Tom Daschle has had a chance to download the opinion. So much of it reads like it was written by a bitter DLC-type ex-Senator who now shills for the insurance industry. Just thinking Daschle might have some insights, and who could know more about IRS penalties!<br /><br />I know the "South Dakotan" got kinda reclusive after losing HHS. I wonder if anyone even bothered to tell there was a court case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3980421295592818922.post-34178344668666848352012-07-15T18:33:45.166-07:002012-07-15T18:33:45.166-07:00I also think we'll eventually know the names o...I also think we'll eventually know the names of those "familiar with the drafting process" (wink-wink-nudge-nudge). But I'll wager the individual source "inside" the court is either Roberts himself or a conduit for Roberts, not one of the four dissenters.<br /><br />When Roberts realized that his collaborators were stupidly telling tales out of school, his only real option was to offer better sourcing to selected media outlets as a distraction. Roberts could rightly say he was the ultimate source anyway.<br /><br />However that may be, the leaks otherwise came down through Democratic channels, as was obvious in the "predictions." But, I think Thomas Friedman was likely correct that "the team" was bipartisan and analogous to the Bowles-Simpson thing (except of course for the legality, whoops), and Roberts was the mailman. Now all the leakers have stfu, but the cat's out of the pandora's box, as Tom might say.<br /><br />By my count, the court voted 8-1 to decide the constutionality of the mandate, and I doubt Roberts et al can block the majority forever.Dread Scotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3980421295592818922.post-20533885906253615782012-07-14T21:42:19.827-07:002012-07-14T21:42:19.827-07:00The health law requires individuals to
1) buy in...The health law requires individuals to <br /><br />1) buy insurance from a private corporation (unless otherwise covered) and <br /><br />2) pay the Federal Government a specified sum if they haven't bought insurance.<br /><br />The question before the court was "Can the Federal Government require citizens to give money to government-specified corporations." <br /><br />The court deadlocked on this question. Four justices said this new "mandate" power was disallowed (reserved to the states or individuals); four said the power fell under the Commerce Clause and was not new.<br /><br />The deciding vote came from the Chief Justice, who changed the question to:<br /><br />"Can the Federal Government levy a penalty (call it a tax) to enforce a mandate itself of unprobed constitutionality?"<br /><br />To which he answered, "yes."<br /><br />Roberts diverted the court from resolving the substantive question with a non sequitur and further failed to build an ideological coalition for his dodge. He achieved an overly clever one-vote majority. The decision left lower courts with no meaningful tools to resolve future challenges to the mandate based on inability to pay. <br /><br />I suspect Roberts' decision was almost literally political, rather than controlled by legal theories or traditional drafting processes. That is, I suspect the decision was co-written by pols, or ex-pols. <br /><br />We can assume that the majority opinion wasn't written with much help from Roberts' clerks (who wrote most of the dissent, actually). Roberts apparently had a sort of kitchen cabinet (kitchen chambers?) that whipped up this puff pastry. And it is that kitchen crew, folks, that are the leakers. <br /><br />Pols leak; law clerks don't. <br /><br />So, there are three problems ahead for ACA: 1. The decision is flimsy jurisprudence. 2. Even before the states got opt-out on Medicaid, the mandate subsidies were underfunded. Now ACA constitutionality is doomed for reasons of gut-level fairness as the big states opt out and individuals are criminalized by poverty. <br /><br />And, 3. The shit is still to hit the fan on whether controlling SCOTUS opinions can be written by people who aren't even in the judicial branch, by people who have never served in the judiciary, and who are directly sponsored by private parties with interests represented by the outcome in the decision.<br /><br /><br />Stay tuned, because it ain't over.<br /><br />It's hardly begun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com