Obama Health Care Law

Conservatives Who Support The Obama Health Care Law: Charles Fried, Laurence Silberman, Jeffrey Sutton

Ronald Leave a comment

Three major conservative leaders have made clear by statements and actions that they believe the Obama Health Care law is constitutional under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Charles Fried, who was Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, was highly critical of some of the questioning by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court this past week. Fried said health care is interstate commerce, and that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. The arguments utilized in questioning are “phony rhetoric” in Fried’s mind.

Judge Laurence Silberman of the DC Court Of Appeals upheld the Obama Health Care law as constitutional in one of the cases brought by states before circuit courts on the way to the Supreme Court, decided on November 8, 2011. He has been a federal judge for 27 years, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, and is a good friend, of all people, of Justice Clarence Thomas, who is seen as a guaranteed vote against the Obama Health Care law.

And Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th Circuit Court Of Appeals upheld the health care law on June 29, 2011, and is seen as a leader of the conservative Federalist Society! He was appointed by George W. Bush, and is considered a disciple of Justice Antonin Scalia! He is well known as a states rights advocate!

So go figure!

This tells us ANYTHING can happen on this Court decision, and not to come to a conclusion this early that the Obama Health Care law is going to be overturned!

The Supreme Court On Trial IF It Destroys Health Care Reform: Creation Of A Constitutional Crisis

Ronald Leave a comment

The US Supreme Court is in the midst of a crisis of massive proportions, if it destroys the Obama Health Care reform in June.

It will create a crisis in health care for about 50 million Americans, and affect young adults, senior citizens, and people with pre-existing conditions in a massively negative way.

It will undermine the major effort of the Obama Administration to bring health care into the 21st century, and on the same level as every other democratic nation in the world, many of whom have had national health care for all for decades.

It will also put the Supreme Court as an institution on trial, as it is already perceived as overly partisan, with many of the decisions decided on party line vote, based on which party’s President chose the members of the Court.

It will also make it even more obvious that the election will have the effect of deciding the future direction of the Court, based on which party gains the Presidency and has control of the US Senate. This has always been true, and has been mentioned by this author numerous times on this blog.

This Court could undermine public faith and respect for the institution itself, doing even more damage than the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, and the Citizens United case of 2010.

The Court has been a hot political issue in the past in election years, including:

1800-Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams, with the power of the Court a key issue, and Adams’ last minute appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall leading, despite opposition of Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson, to a very powerful Supreme Court shaped by Marshall.

1860–The election of Abraham Lincoln, who attacked the Dred Scott decision that stated that a slave owner could take his slave anywhere in the United States, and helping to lead to the secession of the South, and the coming of the Civil War.

1876–An election where the popular vote loser, Rutherford B. Hayes, was chosen by a committee which included five Supreme Court Justices, when no one was able to win the contested electoral votes of three Southern states–Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida.

1912 and 1924–Third party (Progressive Party) candidates Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette, Sr., respectively, proposed limitations on the powers of the Supreme Court .

1936–Franklin D. Roosevelt made the Court an issue because of its constant declaration of New Deal laws as unconstitutional, and tried to “pack” the Court by a proposal to add six new Justices for each one on the Court over the age of 70, an idea soundly defeated in 1937.

1968–Richard Nixon campaigned against the “liberal” Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who then had to swear him as President in January 1969, but retired shortly after.

2000–The Supreme Court on a partisan vote stopped the vote count in the state of Florida, thereby awarding George W. Bush the Presidency over Al Gore, with a margin of victory in Florida of 537 votes statewide.

2012 could be another such case of a President confronting a defiant Supreme Court to the will of the majority in Congress and the American people!

Trying To Fathom The Supreme Court On Health Care: The Court Under The Microscope

Ronald Leave a comment

Yesterday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court led many observers to think that the Court is about to declare the Obama Health Care law unconstitutional this coming June.

Not so fast, ladies and gentlemen! This is hysteria and panic before the fact, with plenty of opportunity after the Court decision, if it is, indeed, negative!

Emphasis was put on Justice Antonin Scalia’s sarcastic comments about mandating broccoli, a totally ridiculous statement! But one must remember that Scalia is a showboat, a maniacal egotist who loves to hear the sound of his own voice, and get everyone’s attention, and one must remember that the Court was issuing an audio of the oral arguments immediately after the event, a very rare circumstance, and that had to be on Scalia’s mind!

Scalia was thought to be a possible vote, but if it is not, so what, as Scalia is, arguably, a hypocrite who is constantly contradictory, utilizing a broad interpretation of the Constitution, when he wishes to, and other times, pontificating on “originalism”, the idea that we must literally follow the Founding Fathers as they saw things in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention.

More importantly, the view of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts will be the crucial votes, and although Kennedy and Roberts both expressed some reservations about the Obama Health Care bill and the mandate contained within it, there were also key comments by both that indicated a mind open to consideration of the constitutionality of the law.

Kennedy is usually the swing vote, and seemed conflicted, which can be seen as a good sign, and Roberts seemed very evenhanded, and is known to want to be in the majority, and probably write this most important decision of the past decade, and aware that the Supreme Court does not look very good in the eyes of many people based on recent cases, particularly the Citizens United Case of 2010, on top of the Bush V. Gore case of 2000.

The argument is that if Kennedy goes to the majority, then Roberts will join, and the vote would be 6-3.

And one must point out that the four defenders of the legislation were excellent in their arguments supporting the legislation, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a true intellectual, particularly outstanding in his arguments, but joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

So, with one more day of oral arguments, it is not time to give up on support of the legislation, and also realize that one cannot always judge how members of the Court will vote, based on oral argument alone, as often, what is being done is to test both sides in the case, and sometimes, purposely mislead on intentions, in the process of asking the lawyers in the case to defend their side.

This decision is far from certain, but progressives should feel optimistic about it at this point, and simply wait patiently to see the result, knowing that the cause is just and compassionate, and that those of us who support it are on the right side of history with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society!

The Conservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, And Mitt Romney: All Supportive Of “Individual Mandate” In The Past!

Ronald 1 Comment

The big argument against the Obama Health Care law is that it is unconstitutional to require an “individual mandate” of all citizens, that they be required to buy health insurance or be assessed a penalty on their income tax returns.

And yet, this is PRECISELY what the conservative Heritage Foundation advocated on the issue of health care as early as 1989!

This is what Newt Gingrich advocated when interviewed on NBC by Tim Russert in 1993!

This is what Mitt Romney advocated in Massachusetts, when they passed the model for the Obama Health Care plan in 2006, and still praised two years ago when the health care law was passed by Congress!

So therefore, the idea of the “individual mandate” is a CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN idea, but now bitterly attacked when the Democrats and Barack Obama achieve it after decades of debate about the need for health care coverage for all Americans!

What does this make the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and many other conservative and Republican leaders?

It makes them total HYPOCRITES, not worthy of our respect and support!

The Supreme Court And Public Opinion: Not The Job Of The Judiciary!

Ronald Leave a comment

A new poll, commissioned by the New York Times, shows that 38 percent want the 2010 Health Care law overturned entirely; 29 percent want the requirement that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance overturned; and only 26 percent want to keep the entire law in place.

At the same time, when it comes down to specifics, the American people support the law. 85 percent approve the requirement that health insurance companies cover those with existing medical conditions or illnesses; 68 percent support allowing children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26; and 77 percent support offering discounts to reduce the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, called the “donut hole”.

At the same time, 48 percent say they find confusing how the law will affect them and their families, while 47 percent say they understand the law.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the American people, as a whole, have no clue as to what this law does, and this is partially the fault of the Obama Administration and the Democrats, but it is also the fault of the opposition Republicans, conservative talk radio, Fox News Channel, and the powerful corporate interests that want the law defeated, and really don’t care about the fact that 50 million Americans have no health care except the emergency room, if they end up there. And if they die because of lack of health care, so be it, is the attitude of these special interest groups.

And now there is discussion of the fact that the United States Supreme Court should overturn the law because of the uneducated and confused public opinion.

But that is NOT the job of the Supreme Court, to listen to public opinion, but instead to LEAD public opinion in the proper direction!

If the John Roberts led Supreme Court overturns the law, they will be condemned in history for having kept us the ONLY major industrial democracy in the world to refuse to cover all citizens on a question of life and death!

The Supreme Court is not designed to be popular, and neither are the circuit courts below them. Their job is to interpret the Constitution, and do what is right for the American people, whether popular or not..

If one had polled public opinion, and in some cases it was actually done, the following would not have occurred:

End of racial segregation in public schools in 1954
Provide for privacy rights for couples to use contraceptives in 1965
End of ban on interracial marriage in 1967
Allowance of abortion rights in 1973
Provision to advance women and minorities because of past discrimination in 1977
Giving of privacy rights to gays and lesbians, not just straight people in 2003

These are an issue of social justice and what is right morally, and the same situation applies to the issue of health care.

Popularity should NEVER be a factor in court decisions, and if the Court is unpopular, so be it!

That is why the courts are not elected, as the ignorance and emotion of the masses should never be a basis of constitutional interpretation or human rights.

The Supreme Court has made America a better place, precisely because it has done what the American people may not have appreciated at the time, but was a necessary action, over and over again!

Two Year Anniversary Of Health Care Law, And Oral Arguments On Case Next Week In Supreme Court

Ronald Leave a comment

The Affordable Care Act, the Obama Health Care legislation, hits its two year anniversary this week, and next week, the US Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the legislation, seen as the landmark case of the past decade by many, and as the crucial issue that will have a dramatic effect either way on the upcoming Presidential Election of 2012.

The Obama Health Care law has allowed young people to remain on their parents’ health insurance to age 26; has prevented pre-existing conditions from being used to deny health care; and has cut down the “donut hole” for senior citizens in relation to their prescription costs.

Many other reforms must wait until 2014, assuming that the Supreme Court does not declare the whole act unconstitutional.

There is furious action to try to destroy the signature legislation that really defines the Obama Presidency, a law that took a full year to pass, and that was passed on party lines, which is actually not at all unusual in history.

Some federal judges have upheld the legislation, while others have challenged it, and it will be argued by both sides over three days for the unusually long total period of six hours, showing just how significant this case is!

As it seems now, the four “liberal” Justices–Bill Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and Barack Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—will support the legislation.

For it to survive in one piece, at least one of the five “conservative” Justices would have to join the four liberal appointees of Clinton and Obama.

Anthony Kennedy, usually the swing vote, and usually joining the liberals on about one third of the cases before the Court, is thought to be a good bet, but not a guarantee.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who is very aware of the significance of this case for the Court and for his reputation, is thought to join in the majority, but again no certainty.

Ironically, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who one would think would be opposed, has indicated in other cases as hints that he just might support the legislation.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito is thought less likely to support the legislation, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is thought to be the one certain, guaranteed vote against the health care legislation.

The argument for the legislation is the application of the commerce clause of the Constitution, which has been utilized over and over again by the US Supreme Court in the past, adding to the powers of the federal government. This was the same controversy with the Social Security Act, with a conservative oriented Supreme Court in the 1930s, and that legislation was upheld.

The argument against is based on opposition to the so called “mandate” that all citizens MUST obtain health insurance coverage by 2014, or face a fine.

What the critics fail to address is that when someone does not have health insurance and ends up needing medical care, he or she ends up in the emergency room, and all of us have to pay for the health care provided. Is it proper that some have no health care coverage and gain medical aid, and the rest of us have to pay for our health care, and also for those who are irresponsible enough to avoid paying for care that he or she knows he or she can gain for free?

This is the crux of the matter, and it is hoped and believed that a majority of the Supreme Court will end up backing the Health Care law, with a prediction by many of at least 5-4, but even possibly 6-3, or 7-2, or even 8-1.

A victory by more than 5-4 would be a real endorsement of the health care legislation, while a 5-4 defeat would be a major blow to 50 million citizens who benefit from the legislation.

In either case, this decision, when it is announced in June, will have a transformative effect on our nation, and on the Presidential Election of 2012. We will all wait with “baited breath” for the result!

President Barack Obama And Women’s Role In His Administration: Greater Than Any President!

Ronald Leave a comment

With the controversy over contraception coverage for women in religiously based employment at the height of the news this week, it became evident that President Obama was influenced by women in his administration toward the stand he took, until he backtracked earlier today. Among those women influencing his earlier stand were Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and White House aide Valerie Jarrett. Among the men opposed were Vice President Joe Biden and former Chief of Staff William Daley.

Last year, it was women working with Barack Obama, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who convinced him to get involved in Libya”s Civil War, although others such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon advised against it.

This is an interesting development, as never before have women had such significance in decision making on important domestic and foreign policy issues as under Obama.

Whether in the long run this will be seen as positive for the Obama record in office will be debated and analyzed for decades!

The Advancement Of Gay Marriage Rights In California And Washington State

Ronald Leave a comment

Events of this week are very promising regarding the expansion of gay marriage rights.

California’s Ninth Circuit Court has declared Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in 2008 as unconstitutional, upholding a district court ruling, and this makes it likely that gay marriage will be on the Supreme Court docket very soon, possibly even this year, already full of turning point cases on the Obama Health Care plan, voting rights, and illegal immigration restrictions in Arizona and Alabama.

Additionally, the state of Washington is about to become the seventh state to allow gay marriage, after passage by the state legislature and a soon to be signing by the governor of the state.

So Washington joins Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa as states that allow gay marriage, along with Washington DC, and hopefully, it will return to California where it was legal for a period of time before being overturned.

Twenty to thirty years from now, when gay marriage is a normal thing, many will wonder what was the fuss back in the early part of the century, much like when one looks back to before 1967, one wonders why the big deal over racial intermarriage, which was not legal until a Supreme Court decision in 1967.

Marriage cannot be forced on any religious group, but there is no legal reason why gay marriage cannot be done outside of religious institutions that reject change. It is a question of basic human rights, and equal treatment under the Constitution!

Health Care, Women’s Health Rights, And Churches And Synagogues

Ronald 2 Comments

The Obama Health Care legislation has come under attack on a new front: that hospitals and universities and other institutions connected to religious groups, other than actual church or synagogue properties, are being required to provide contraceptive and abortion services to women who work for those institutions, outraging the Catholic Church, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and Evangelical Christian groups that oppose such practices.

An exemption for churches and synagogues has not been enough to appease these religious groups, and it threatens the support of these groups for the Obama re-election campaign, but if the Obama Administration abandons the rights of women of all religious persuasions and denies them such services, they could also lose support among women who want these services covered.

It is clear that a majority of Catholic women ignore the teachings of their own church, while it is not clear that the same is true for Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and Evangelical Christians.

So this presents a quandary for Obama, and is being called an attack on religion, rather than an issue of an attack on women’s health and basic human rights to control their own bodies. Rather than have to follow the teachings of groups that are dominated by men, many millions of women want to determine their own futures, and not be controlled by their employers as to what health coverage they have.

The likelihood is that Obama will cave in on this to the religious groups, but a true profile in courage would be to make it clear there is religious freedom in this country, but it should not dictate health services available to women in the name of religious liberty.

One does not have to accept contraceptives or pursue abortion, but women should have the freedom, no matter what their religion or no religion, to pursue their own freedom, separate from organized religious institutions trying to control their destiny. They should not be required to quit their employment to have freedom of choice.

A Generation Of Justice Clarence Thomas: Its Negative Impact!

Ronald Leave a comment

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has now been on the Court for a generation, and his impact is clear.

This is a man who was enmeshed in controversy when he was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to replace Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall as the second African American in the history of the Supreme Court. He was clearly the “anti Marshall”, and has remained in controversy ever since 1991.

Thomas was accused by African American law professor Anita Hill of sexual harassment, and accused liberals of a “lynching”, and only was approved by a vote of 52-48 in the Senate, the closest of the 20th century. He has, in a memoir in 2007 and before and since, continued to have bitterness and resentment toward liberals and his other critics, and said when he was confirmed that he would confound the “damn liberals” by staying on the Court for 43 years, the age he was when appointed, which would surpass Justice William O. Douglas’s 36 years on the Court, the longest in Supreme Court history. His wife strangely contacted Anita Hill last year to ask for an “apology”, which was not forthcoming, but continues to simmer in his wife’s mind after a generation.

Thomas’s wife has been involved in ethical problems as the head of a conservative organization working against the Obama Health Care law, and in other ways, working with the Tea Party Movement, while her husband is involved in decisions where his wife’s activities create ethical problems for him, although he is unwilling to react to any criticism by recusing himself from cases, as creating a conflict of interest. He does not care what his critics say!

On the Court, he is seen in many ways as the MOST conservative member, even more than Antonin Scalia in some ways. He is well liked by his colleagues, but almost never asks any questions in oral arguments before the Court. He gives lectures around the country, but avoids the news media. He comes across as bitter and odd in many ways, but also arrogant and hard to fathom.

Thomas has shown willingness to strike down case law going back decades, and sometimes even a century. He is the only one to argue for consistent return to the “original” meaning of the Constitution when it was adopted in 1789, even more than Antonin Scalia. He sees the Court as having gone the wrong way in many areas of the law, and wanting reversal of past rulings.

Thomas alone believes that states should be able to establish an official religion; believes teenagers have no free speech rights at all; believes business should not be regulated and their commercial speech and campaign activities should not be regulated; wants to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act; and backs the President’s ability to hold an American citizen in prison indefinitely without charges or review by the courts.

Thomas refuses to see prisoner rights as legitimate and is against affirmative action to the extreme, even though he benefited from it himself! He spends his time only with people who agree with his hard line views, which many think is a shame, as it indicates he has a closed mind.

So Clarence Thomas continues to have a long range, in many ways deleterious effect on the Supreme Court, and probably will for close to another generation, as he predicted!