Home / Constitution
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
If John Roberts changed his position on Obamacare to protect the court from being called political, the initial polls are not encouraging

If John Roberts changed his position on Obamacare to protect the court from being called political, the initial polls are not encouraging

It is possible that the Supreme Court's approval rating would have fallen anyway as the Obama administration and Democrats would have savaged them if they struck down Obamacare, but this can't be encouraging.  From Rasmussen Reports:
Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.
A week ago,  36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week. . . .
Thirty-seven percent (37%) now believe the Supreme Court is too liberal, while 22% think it's too conservative. A week ago, public opinion was much more evenly divided:  32% said it was too liberal and 25% said too conservative. . . .
Jan Crawford at CBS is someone who I have met and I think that she comes across as quite credible.  She claims to have two well placed sources who say that Roberts changed his position as a result of outside pressure on the court.
Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own." . . .
Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld. . . . .
The funny thing is that while the liberals on the court talk about giving respect to legislative decisions, it is clear that they only give respect to decisions by liberal legislatures.  For example, the court just recently struck down a decision to give life sentences without parole to juveniles who commit especially heinous acts of murder.  The court had previously struck down the death penalty for 17 year olds, and states moved to have life in prison. Now that has been struck down.  
NJ judge says that even blind person has the right to own guns

NJ judge says that even blind person has the right to own guns

So apparently you don't lose your rights when you are blind.  From CBS 2 News in New York:


. . .  That episode began a legal battle that wound up in Morris County Superior Court. Prosecutors argued Hopler shouldn’t have guns because he’s a danger. However, a judge ruled otherwise, saying his disability shouldn’t take away his constitutional right to bear arms.
Robert Trautman is Hopler’s attorney, and said police singled out his client.
“The state argued that Steve drinks too much.” Trautman said. “It’s just simply that the police didn’t want Steve Hopler to own firearms because he’s blind and they felt that was improper.” . . .
A prediction on how to determine who is right about Obamacare reducing premiums

A prediction on how to determine who is right about Obamacare reducing premiums

If Obamacare is currently lowering health insurance premiums, striking down the law will quickly raise rates.  If Obamacare is raising premiums, prices will fall when it is struck down.

From The Hill newspaper:

Democratic strategist James Carville said on CNN that the prospect of the healthcare law being overturned might be the best political outcome for Democrats and Obama. “I honestly believe — this is not spin — I think that this will be the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party, because healthcare costs will escalate unbelievably … the Republican Party will own the healthcare system for the foreseeable future.” Unbelievably cynical. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made the same point almost immediately. . . .
Ginsburg tells Egyptians not to look to the US Constitution for guidance

Ginsburg tells Egyptians not to look to the US Constitution for guidance

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg advising Egypt not to model its constitution after the US Constitution:

"You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?"

See also this. Ginsburg's objection is that the US Constitution doesn't guarantee government services for people.
The decisions by Appeals Court Judges on the Constitutionality of Obamacare haven't broken down perfectly along party lines

The decisions by Appeals Court Judges on the Constitutionality of Obamacare haven't broken down perfectly along party lines

From the New York Times:

The three federal courts of appeal that have issued decisions on the law so far have all reached different conclusions, with one upholding it, a second — the 11th Circuit— striking it down in part, and a third saying that threshold legal issues barred an immediate ruling. A fourth challenge to the law was heard last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The views of the appeals court judges have not uniformly tracked the presumed views of the presidents who appointed them. Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, appointed by President George W. Bush, joined the majority in a 2-to-1 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, which upheld the law. Judge Frank M. Hull of the 11th Circuit was appointed by President Bill Clinton and was an author of its majority opinion. . . .


My guess is that who appointed a Supreme Court Justice does a better job of predicting how they will vote than who appointed a Circuit Court judge. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case has two Republican appointees and one Democrat hearing it.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)