Obama's appealing to a common idea that the Supreme Court should give the legislature the benefit of the doubt when it isn't completely clear they're wrong. I think that's fair. The way he couched it was pretty weak, and he was trying to bully them by trying to tell them their jobs. So, I can understand a judge being annoyed. But, the 5th circuit went way overboard. They should recognize and ignore it as a vapid political talking point. By making a big deal about it, they show their own bias and create a reason for people to doubt the legitimacy of any judgment against Obamacare they may now hand down in this case.
Claim that the Court is out of touch with the common American and is entirely politically motivated.... then watch as his political capital increases?
I have worked for the courts as well..... and they are political, and always have been. The Supreme Court is no different. If the Court wants to be treated as above politics, then they need to act accordingly... this goes for Conservative and Liberal Justices.
Whatever way this goes the SC will issue a ruling so technical in detail that it will confuse the issue more than settle it. If we want a single payer program though, we will have to have a significantly different House Of Representatives.
This is just silly. The same jokers that are defending the court in this instance were criticizing it when they upheld affirmative action or ruled against detentions without trials in Guantanamo. Just ignore them.
The house wasnt a problem. They passed a public option. It was the Senate and the filabuster that screwed everything up. I'm at the point now where I hope someone kills of the filabuster. Perhaps if Republicans take control of the Senate, they'll threaten to do it again and I hope democrats call their bluff and let them. I'd rather have functioning government (even when Republicans get what they want) than the crappy gridlock we have now.
I didn't say they weren't political, I believe that judges should try to be the most objective part of government. That is their role, that is what a judge is, an impartial referee that doesn't take sides in a case whether civil or criminal. As I see it, that is the ideal. In everyday practice, there are many very partisan judges. I worked with some, but many others came very close to the ideal. They were non political and extremely fair and impartial. I have seen liberal judges render conservative decisions and conservative judges make liberal decisions. Judges who only vote their narrow political views, in my opinion aren't very good at what they do.
Unfortunately, those are the judges that gets appointed to the SC by a political system and by political people. That's why, you can almost predict who's going to vote for what most of the time, unlike the lower courts. Not always of course, but I can make a good living if someone takes my every one of my bets.
Generally, gridlock is good. Only the really really important stuff passes and most of the rest of the crap serves special interests. IMO, healthcare reform is really important but doubtful the insurance requirement, as written, I will solve the bigger problems. I have an idea, offer non-profit status incentives (or maybe require it) to all insurance companies covering healthcare. It seems like a conflict of interest when people profit for refusing services. Problem solved. It will never happen. Also find a way where people can legitimately shop for health insurance like we do with car insurance. For nearly all, by far the most cost effective way to get insurance is through your employer which removes virtually all flexibility for people to competitively shop for rates. Insurance companies are then accountable for Fortunes 500's interests and not accountable their actual customers.
..which it makes it uber-ironic that you are defending the integrity and impartiality of the Roberts court. Rightly or wrongly, nobody, lib or con, would disagree that the 4 +1 are moving the court in a certain direction, without regard for restraint or stare decisis (despite somebody's sworn senate testimony otherwise)...
Jonathan Haidt is spot on with his analysis in the psychology of liberal vs conservative. He is very liberal and if you read his stuff it predicts and explains every post in the D&D.
I think you really misunderstood my first post, seriously. I think it was a bad political move on the President's part to "call out" the Court. That assumes that they are going to render a purely political decision. How can he possibly know that? Leak? Possible, but unlikely. An attempt to "bully" the Justices only increases the likelihood that they will harden their thinking along political lines. Give them some credit for doing the right thing.
I *don't* know it; but they've done it before and their street cred is gone. Roberts, Alito & co. pretty much lost it all when they basically spent their entire confirmation hearing talking about stare decisis and their respect for restraint and precedent,a nd their entire time on the bench actively trying to overturn precedent...it's impossible to prove, but it's borderline perjury (if you could prove they knew they would do this at the time)
Actually, Heidt's theory makes a lot more sense when you consider that widely-held conservative theories are just bat**** insane and illogical by any rational/objective measure (climate change denialism, creationism, birtherism, economic know-nothingness) and are accordingly less likely to be accepted/understtod. It's not that Mitt Romney is now better at *understanding* conservative insanity that he's now against the very same individual mandate he himself and the GOP once proposed, it's that he and they are willing to forsake logic and policy for expediency. We see these examples again and again. The same wing nuts propose the same, mutually exclusive anti global warming policies all the time. Is this indicative of some sort of intellectual flexibility? or of disingenuity?
I've said it before, Obama is a decent man, who means well, but his lack of political experience has really hurt him. I'd still take him over McCain, but his bumbling has allowed the GOP to get a second wind.
