Any nuclear option will have fallout and the big question is always "Where will it settle?" In forcing the nuclear option in the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, the Democrats have miscalculated where the fallout zone will be. Rather than landing on the Republicans and hurting Trump, it will come to rest squarely on them.
In their petulant effort to get even with the Republicans for not allowing Obama'a Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, to come up for a vote, not only will it not prevent Gorsuch from becoming an associate Justice, it will pave the way for potentially three more conservative Trump appointees who might have been effectively opposed had they not caused this new precedent. This was a wasted maneuver over a seat on the bench that would not have changed the balance of the court anyway because conservative Gorsuch will be replacing the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
A much better strategy would have been to oppose the next Trump nominee who will most likely be replacing a retiring liberal Justice Ginsburg which could effect the balance of the court. Further, although it may play well with their far-left base, it is equally likely to shore up Trump's base.
Additionally, because the Supreme Court was such an important topic with Independents as well as Republican in the last election, this latest move by the Democrats, may push the Independents to support Trump and jeopardize the 2018 re-election chances for several more moderate Democrats in states that went for Trump in 2016. This would ultimately give the Republicans even larger majorities in the House and Senate making opposing their agenda even more difficult.
As the saying goes, "When your opponents are busy destroying themselves, don't get in the way."
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Conspiracy Theories Are A Sad Indictment of Our System
I think the volume of conspiracy theories on the Internet is an indicator in the level of distrust the people have for its government. This was very apparent in Tunisia where I lived for four years and we know how that turned out.
The death of Justice Scalia has caused a spike of conspiracy theories and otherwise serious people seem to entertain the possibility that someone or group may have had him assassinated for political reasons.
This shows our slide into "Third Worldism" folks and it is very sad!
The death of Justice Scalia has caused a spike of conspiracy theories and otherwise serious people seem to entertain the possibility that someone or group may have had him assassinated for political reasons.
This shows our slide into "Third Worldism" folks and it is very sad!
Monday, June 29, 2015
Justice Roberts Got It Right But Still Got It Wrong
Regardless of whether or not you are in favor of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), last Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare was a disaster for the rule of law in the United States.
Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said, "The ACA was passed to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." thus he concluded that the intent of Congress in their wording that subsidies would only apply to those who purchased their insurance through exchanges, "Established by a state" had to mean both federal and state exchanges because otherwise the Act would be a failure. He reasoned that Congress would not have written the law to fail. That might have been avoided had they not had to "Pass the law in order to know what's in it." but that is beside the point. So John Roberts got it right in that Congress wouldn't have written the law so that it would fail but he got it wrong when he concluded that allowing subsidies only for those who got their health insurance though state exchanges would result in the ACA failing. What Justice Roberts misses is that Congress saw this wording as a way to make the Act succeed not fail. According to Jonathan Gruber, the architect of the law, subsidies only for state established exchanges was a key provision because it was seen as a way to pressure states to establish their own exchanges. State exchanges, not federal subsidies, were seen as the key to success for the ACA. Liberals gambled that citizens in the various states would insist that their state legislatures set up exchanges so they could receive the subsidies. Like so many other shenanigans associated with this law, this backfired and once again Justice Roberts saved a poorly constructed law, written by a lazy, conniving Congress. This is a terrible precedent for the rule of law. It should not be up to the Court to find ways to save bad laws yet once again this is exactly what the Supreme Court did for a second time with regard to the ACA. As a result, Congress will continue to pass overly complex, poorly conceived, self-contradicting laws written by staffers and lobbyist, and they can count on the Courts to rule on what the law should have said rather than what it does say. What this does is abdicate Congress' Constitutional role of writing law as the duly elected representatives of the people to 9 unelected men and women in black robes who are appointed for life and accountable to no one. The result is the death of the rule of law in America.
With over 2800 pages, one can only wonder what future harm this abomination of a law will do to America and our system of laws. What will Justice Roberts and the rest of the justices do when Congress figures out that allowing children to stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26 destroys one of the major premises of the ACA - namely that the mandatory insurance premiums of young, healthy Americans will pay for the insurance of older, less healthy citizens. Did Congress really mean that children can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26? I guess we will have to wait and see what John Roberts says Congress meant.
Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said, "The ACA was passed to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." thus he concluded that the intent of Congress in their wording that subsidies would only apply to those who purchased their insurance through exchanges, "Established by a state" had to mean both federal and state exchanges because otherwise the Act would be a failure. He reasoned that Congress would not have written the law to fail. That might have been avoided had they not had to "Pass the law in order to know what's in it." but that is beside the point. So John Roberts got it right in that Congress wouldn't have written the law so that it would fail but he got it wrong when he concluded that allowing subsidies only for those who got their health insurance though state exchanges would result in the ACA failing. What Justice Roberts misses is that Congress saw this wording as a way to make the Act succeed not fail. According to Jonathan Gruber, the architect of the law, subsidies only for state established exchanges was a key provision because it was seen as a way to pressure states to establish their own exchanges. State exchanges, not federal subsidies, were seen as the key to success for the ACA. Liberals gambled that citizens in the various states would insist that their state legislatures set up exchanges so they could receive the subsidies. Like so many other shenanigans associated with this law, this backfired and once again Justice Roberts saved a poorly constructed law, written by a lazy, conniving Congress. This is a terrible precedent for the rule of law. It should not be up to the Court to find ways to save bad laws yet once again this is exactly what the Supreme Court did for a second time with regard to the ACA. As a result, Congress will continue to pass overly complex, poorly conceived, self-contradicting laws written by staffers and lobbyist, and they can count on the Courts to rule on what the law should have said rather than what it does say. What this does is abdicate Congress' Constitutional role of writing law as the duly elected representatives of the people to 9 unelected men and women in black robes who are appointed for life and accountable to no one. The result is the death of the rule of law in America.
With over 2800 pages, one can only wonder what future harm this abomination of a law will do to America and our system of laws. What will Justice Roberts and the rest of the justices do when Congress figures out that allowing children to stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26 destroys one of the major premises of the ACA - namely that the mandatory insurance premiums of young, healthy Americans will pay for the insurance of older, less healthy citizens. Did Congress really mean that children can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26? I guess we will have to wait and see what John Roberts says Congress meant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)