What you say is attractive, but I think misleadingly partisan. For example, in Kelo v. New London it was the conservative dissenters who wanted to concoct a version of “public use” that didn’t include “immediate public sale to a private concern” as a way of limiting the abuse of eminent domain. For what it’s worth, I was inclined to agree, politically. But it was the moderates and liberals who abode by the rules and said SCOTUS did not have the right to interfere in the city government’s use of eminent domain.
In the case of PPACA’s individual mandate, there is a strong feeling in some quarters, and this crosses party lines, that mandating the purchase of private insurance is distasteful and inefficient; that a single-payer system would be better both economically and morally. But that’s a question of policy design, a political question. In fact, Medicare Part D (a GOP project, as it happens) strongly resembles this, by not offering a public option for pensioners’ prescription drug benefit. Has Fox News been trumpeting how that must be changed as well, or is it kosher because one has the option not to subscribe? Well, in PPACA one has the option not to subscribe as well; no one’s getting a felony charge for not having insurance.
You’re trying to rules-lawyer off of unreliable legislative rhetoric. It’s a tax penalty in effect. You can call it a penalty instead of a tax, because it’s imposed in the absence of other behavior, but it’s administered through the IRS, and those too low in income to pay income taxes don’t pay it. Is it a tax or not? Well, it’s “a tax” compared to doing time. Arguably it’s not “a tax” in exactly the same way a sales tax is. Or is it?
We tax behavior when we tax transactions, and we fine negligence in various ways without calling it a tax, and all of this is OK. The individual mandate may be bad policy, but it’s almost certainly constitutional.
So there’s no possible way that the mandate is unconstituional? It’s an open-and-shut case?
The fact that the case has reached the SCOTUS in the first place disproves that. Other courts have ruled it unconstitutional, leading to this appeal - were they politically-motivated too?
Is every case you lose going to be political? Or can you step out of your own biases and see both sides of the issue yourself?
You realize that everything being said about the court now was said by conservatives about the Warren court, right?
But that’s a circular argument, because not all issues are “left-wing” vs. “right-wing”. I am a liberal who strongly supports the Citizens United decision, for instance, on free speech grounds, as did the “liberal” ACLU.
Sure, sometimes Scalia and the other Republicans on the Court will come down on the side of civil liberties. That just means they’d fit into the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. But whenever corporate power is at stake, all Republicans, libertarian or not, will come down on the side of their corporate masters.
I’m a lifelong Dem, but I have to say that hardcore liberals like you have turned into bizarre corporation-hating machines. You seem to see everything in terms of corporations vs. everyone else.
I’m talking about Republicans on the Supreme Court. If you think the Justices are non-partisan I’ve got some snake oil I can give you for a very good price.
That’s just a silly assessment. Do you actually claim to speak for “anybody” or “everybody”?
The writer of the article you linked is one more political hack attempting to blame the SC because CONGRESS wrote and passed a pssst poor bill.
CONGRESS debated this bill and the record of that debate is in the Congressional Record. The SC will use the Congressional Record as a “part” of it’s deliberations to decide what the intent of CONGRESS was when CONGRESS passed this bill. If individual members of CONGRESS have changed their postition, they can file additional documents with the SC explaining their new position and why the court should consider their new position.
CONGRESS can always readdress healthcare reform. No one can stop them from writing a new bill that actually meets the requirements and limitations of the U.S. Constitution. Which is what CONGRESS was supposed to have done in the first place.
Blaming the SC for the failure of CONGRESS to properly carry out it’s responsibilities is absurd.
Not at all. I stated it was not a left v right issue. Just because Scalia votes on a case does not make the opposite vote the left wing ideal. At times, when individual civil liberties are at stake, he’ll vote the way I might. But when the cases come that his party is heavily invested in, he takes his marching orders from the party.
No proof of impartiality is required. One can’t prove a negative.
You need to back up your claim of partiality. You need to show evidence that Scalia decided a case based on political beliefs, ignoring his legal judgement. That’s going to be tough. You will have to show that he has said one thing about an issue politically and another from a legal standpoint. You can’t just throw some cases around. After all, you could just as easily claim that the “liberal” justices did the same thing.
What case’s decided by the SCOTUS do you consider “minor ones”? The fact that a case managed to even make it to the SC makes it a case of major legal concern.
